JUDGMENT
Rathore, J.
1. The respondent No. 3 Gomda son of Shri Narayan Meena sident of Chadi, Tehsil Keshoraipatan, District Bundi moved applications on 3.2,92 and 6.2,92 before the respondent No. 2, the Additional Collector, C.A.D. Kota, and requested that the land bearing Khasra Nos. 237/2 and 235/1 measuring 5 bigha & 10 biswas land was taken for land development by the Government and that on Khasra No. 235/5 measuring 2 bigha 2 biswas (Sivyachak) he is in possession from the last 40 years and that has to be regularised. He requested that Khasra No. 427 be entered in his name and the land measuring 1 bigha 5 biswa of Khasra No. 954 be declared Sivaychak so that the applicant may be dispossessed. The application was considered and was partly allowed by the Additional Collector, C.A.D., Kota, vide order dated 13.5.92 whereof it was ordered that the land measuring 1 bigha 5 biswa relating to Khasra No. 951, a Sivyachak land be got entered in the name of respondent No. 3 Gomda and further direction was made that land measuring one bigha 5 biswa of Khasra No. 954 from the side of North be reserved as Sivyachak land and directed for necessary corrections in revenue records.
2. The petitioners filed as appeal against the order dated 13.5.92 before the Divisional Commissioner, Kota, who dismissed the appeal of the petitioner vide judgment dated 29.8.94. Against the order dated 13.5.1992 passed by the Additional Collector, C.A.D., Kota and order dated 29.8.94 passed by the Divisional commissioner, Kota, the petitioner preferred the present writ petition.
3. The petitioner challenged these orders manly on the ground that the learned Additional Collector has not correctly appreciated the provisions of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 and that of Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956. For the revenue matters revenue officers and revenue courts have only power to allot or regularise or make correction of entries. The learned Additional Collector has not given any notice to the recorded Khatedar of Khasra No. 950 relating to petitioner which is attached to Khasra No. 951, the Sivaychak which is given to respondent Gomda. Therefore, finding given by the learned Additional Collector is against the principle of natural justice.
4. Replies on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2 and that of 3 have been filed. In the reply submitted on behalf of respondent No. 3 it is submitted that in the application filed on behalf of respondent No. 3 it was categorically stated that his land in Khasra no. 237/2 and 235/1 measuring 5 bighas 10 biswas had been taken by the government for land development and that on Sewai Chak land measuring 2 bighas 2 biswas falling in Khasra No. 235/5 he had been in possession for the last forty years and that the land
should have been taken from Khasra No. 954 on northern boundary. In the application it was further stated that Sewai Chak land of Khasra No. 951 measuring 1 bigha 5 biswas be entered in the name of the applicant out of his land in Khasra No. 954, land measuring 1 bigha 5 bishwa on northern boundary may be entered as Sewai Chak so that the applicant could not be evicted from the land which had been in his possession since long.
5. It has further been contended that on that basis of the report submitted by the Tehsildar, the order dated 13.5.92 had been passed by the learned Assistant Collector and that the petitioner cannot be said to be aggrieved party and therefore no notice was required to be given to him. Therefore, the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner that in view of the provision of Section 39(3) of the Act of 1975 any person can file appeal will not automatically mean that the appeal filed by such person in any case is to be allowed.
6. Mr. S.K. Jindal, learned counsel for the petitioner, in reply to the submissions made on behalf of the respondent, Submits that prior to filing of the application before the learned Additional Collector, Kola, the respondent No. 3, Gomda, filed a civil suit on 3.1.92 with an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 C.P.C. for granting temporary injunction, which was rejected on 16.1.93 and the appeal filed before the Additional Civil Judge, Bundi was also rejected on 25.10.94.
7. He further submits that before filing of application before Additional Collector, Kota the Dakhalnama was given to me petitioners and respondent Gomda also but no objection at that time was raised about the dispute.
8. It is further submitted that in the Rajasthan Land Development Corporation Act, 1975 the Collector has power regarding determination of disputes arising out of land developments which is very limited. In this Act, the is no provision of regularisation or allotment of correction of entries.
9. Mr. Jindal further submits that the writ petition has been admitted in the year 1995 and during the pendency of the writ petition there was stay granted by this Court by which the respondents are restrained from interfering with the petitioner’s possession and till date the petitioner is In possession. In reply to the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner the respondents have failed to establish the fact whether the possession has been given to respondent No. 3 or not.
10. To support this argument Mr. Jindal placed reliance on the judgment of this Court delivered in the case of Shiv Narain v. State of Rajasthan (10), wherein it was observed as under:-
“Moreso, this Court, vide its order dated 15.9.88, stayed the operation of the impugned orders dated 19.10.78 and 22.8.88. The stay order was confirmed vide order dated 4.10.88 and the stay was directed to be operative till the disposal of the writ petition. The application filed by the contesting respondents to vacate the stay order was rejected vide order dated 21.7.89. Thus, even otherwise, the petitioner is in physical possession of the land bearing Khasra No. 608 for a long time and, therefore, it is not desirable to dispossess him from the said land at such a belated stage”.
11. Here, in the instant case also in view of the interim order dated 7.3.95 the respondent were restrained from interfering with the petitioner’s possession and the petitioner is having physical possession over the land bearing Khasra No. 950 for a long time and that’s way it is not desirable to dispossess him from the said land at such a belated stage. Therefore, the judgment of Shiv Narain (supra) squarely covers the present controversy.
12. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders dated 13.5.92 and 29.8.94 passed by the Additional Collector and Divisional Commissioner, Kota respectively are hereby dished and set aside. There shall be no orders as to cost.