1 S. B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1884/2008 GANPAT SINGH & ANOTHER V. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. DATE OF ORDER ::: 01/04/2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI Mr.R.S.Deo Rajpurohit, for Petitioners. Mr. Rishi Vaishnav, Dy. G.A. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 19.06.1997, whereby reference made to the Board of Revenue was answered. The writ petition has been filed now after a period of eleven years on the ground that the order dated 19.06.1997 was passed by the Board of Revenue without a notice to the petitioners' mother who was alive till the year, 2005. Solely on that ground, the aforesaid order has been challenged and, in that regard, the petitioner has submitted order-sheet, but perusal of the order-sheet does not show that service on the petitioners' mother was not effected, in fact necessary record lies with the Board of Revenue and in view of that, if at all the petitioner was having any grievance against the order dated 19.06.1997 which is said to have been made known to the 2 petitioners recently, then looking to the ground raised in the petition, a review petition could have been filed before the Board of Revenue because if at all the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is accepted, it is clearly an error apparent on the face of the record, looking to the above, so far as the present writ petition is concerned, same is not maintainable till the petitioners exhaust the remedy by filing a review petition before the Board of Revenue. Looking to the fact in view of the statement of the learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners are in possession of the property in dispute, thus if the review petition is filed then it needs to be heard and decided expeditiously. It is expected that the Board of Revenue shall decide the review petition within shortest possible time if the petitioners prefer review petition within one month. If the revision petition is preferred along with an application for condonation of delay, the Board of Revenue is expected to decide the matter taking into consideration all the relevant aspects, including the fact as to whether service of the case for deciding the reference was effected on the petitioners mother or not. 3 With the above directions, the writ petition is dismissed. However, the respondents are directed not to disturb the possession of the petitioner for a period of one month. (M. N. BHANDARI), J. scd