SBCWP No.1116/2007 Smt. Shanti & Ors. Vs. State & Ors. 1 SBCWP No.1116/2007 Smt. Shanti & Ors. Vs. State & Ors. DATE OF ORDER : - 22.1.2009 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr.Sandeep Shah, for the petitioners. Mr.Rakesh Arora, for the respondents. <><><> Heard learned counsel for the parities. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 4.2.2003 which was upheld by the Board of Revenue by order dated 13.1.2006 and review was dismissed by the Board of Revenue vide order dated 22.11.2006. The contention of the petitioners is that before first appellate court-the Revenue Appellate Authority, Pali during the pendency of the appeal, one of the respondent Champa Lal died on 3.10.2001 and in spite of information about the death of Champa Lal, the Champa Lal' legal representatives were not brought on record by the appellant, therefore, the appeal abated, but the Revenue Appellate Authority, Pali held that appeal can proceed even without legal representatives of Champa Lal has not been impleaded as SBCWP No.1116/2007 Smt. Shanti & Ors. Vs. State & Ors. 2 party. The said order was upheld by the Board of Revenue. Champa Lal's mother was already party in the appeal before the Revenue Appellant Authority in her own capacity. She is admittedly legal representative of deceased Champa Lal and therefore, one of the legal representatives was already on record in the appeal of the deceased Champa Lal. Therefore, if the Revenue Appellate Authority held that the appellant can proceed then the Revenue Appellate Authority has not committed any error of law. However, the Revenue Appellate Authority was of the view that since Champa Lal and other decedents of Chandanmal sold the property to other respondents, who are respondents nos. 5 to 7, therefore also, the appeal can proceed. I do not find any illegality in the order passed by the courts below. Hence, there is no merit in this writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. c.p.goyal/-