1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR ORDER Bhanubhai & Ors. vs. Smt. Rani & Ors. (S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.6385/06) Dated:- 29.10.2007. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA Mr. Rajesh Parihar for Mr. Suresh Shrimali,for the petitioner. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. This writ petition is directed against judgment and decree dated 30.3.2000(Annexure 11) passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Sirohi in Appeal No. 6/99 and the consequential execution proceedings initiated at the instance of Smt. Rani-appellant therein( respondent no. 1 herein) . It is relevant to notice that aggrieved by aforesaid judgment and decree dated 30.3.2000 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, the petitioner had preferred a second appeal before the learned Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer( in short "the Board" hereinafter) u/s 224 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955( in short "the Act of 1955" hereinafter) which was rejected by the Board vide judgment dated 2.9.2003 (Annexure 12) but, no prayer has been made in this writ petition for quashing the said order. The brief facts of the case are that Smt. Rani-respondent no. 1 herein preferred a suit u/ss. 53, 88 and 188 of the Act of 2 1955, for partition and permanent injunction impleading 61 persons as defendants including the petitioners herein who were impleaded as defendants no. 28, 29, 31 and 36 respectively in the suit. The plaintiff Smt. Rani claimed in the suit that land ad measuring 5 bighas comprising Aaraji no. 307/261 had been purchased by her through sale deed dated 16.8.1969 from Shri Vijay Pal Singh and Smt. Manju w/o Shri Vijay Pal Singh, defendants no. 15 and 16 in the suit. On 10.9.1996, a prayer was made on behalf of the plaintiff Smt. Rani that she may be allowed to relinquish 12 biswas land belonging to the defendant nos. 28, 29, 31 and 36 - the petitioners herein comprising khasra nos. 275/33, 275/34, 275/35 and 275/36 respectively. She also prayed that she may be allowed to withdraw the suit in respect of the aforesaid defendants. Accordingly, on 8.10.1996 , the names of defendants no. 28, 29, 31 and 36-the petitioners herein were deleted from the array of defendants. The suit preferred by the plaintiff Smt. Rani was dismissed by the Sub Divisional Officer vide judgment and decree dated 11.1.1990. As detailed supra, the names of the defendants nos. 28, 29, 31 and 36-the petitioners herein were deleted from the array of the defendants, yet, in judgment dated 11.1.1990 their names were shown as defendants. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree dated 11.1.1990, the plaintiff Smt. Rani preferred an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, 3 Sirohi wherein obviously, the defendants nos. 28, 29, 31 and 36 -the petitioners herein were not impleaded as party respondents in the matter. The appeal preferred by Smt. Rani was allowed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Sirohi vide judgment and decree dated 30.3.2000 and the suit preferred by the plaintiff Smt. Rani was decreed . Smt. Rani was declared khatedar of land ad measuring 4 bighas and 8 biswas comprising khasra no. 307/261 and a permanent injunction was issued in her favour against the defendants not to interfere with her possession and cultivation of the land . The decree was also passed for effecting partition of the land in the revenue record amongst the parties to the suit. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 30.3.2000 passed by the Appellate Authority, the petitioners herein preferred second appeal u/s 224 of the Act of 1955. It was contended on behalf of the petitioners before the learned Board of Revenue that the plaintiff Smt. Rani had already relinquished her right about 12 biswas of land in favour of the petitioner out of 5 bighas of land, therefore, the Appellate Authority has erred in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff for entire 5 bighas land. The learned Board noticed that the subordinate Court has decreed the suit of the plaintiff to the extent of 4 bighas and 8 biswas of land comprising khasra no. 307/261 (whatever new khasra allotted after the settlement). Therefore, the contention of the 4 appellants -the petitioners herein that the suit has been decreed regarding the 12 bighas of land belonging to them as well was rejected as baseless. No other point was raised on behalf of the petitioners herein before the learned Board. It is not in dispute that the said judgment and decree dated 2.9.2003 passed by the learned Board attained finality. Smt. Rani filed an application for execution of the decree passed in her favour before the Sub Divisional Officer, Mount Abu. Suffice it to say that on 1.4.2003, the mutation was entered in name of Smt. Rani, who later sold the land through her power of attorney holder Rajendra Singh to Smt. Sushila Devi w/o Rajendra Singh. On a notice being served on behalf of the petitioners, the Tehsildar, Mt. Abu cancelled the mutations made in favour of Smt. Rani and Smt. Sushila w/o Rajendra Singh and effected the mutation in favour of the petitioners herein vide order dated 20.5.2003. The facts and events subsequent thereto are not brought on record, however, at this stage, the petitioners after a lapse of about six years has assailed the validity of order dated 30.3.2000 passed by Revenue Appellate Authority in favour of the respondent no. 1.Though, in the petition, the petitioners have stated that they are aggrieved by order passed by the Board as well but, as noticed above, no prayer for quashing the said order has been incorporated in the petition. 5 Admittedly, the judgment and decree dated 30.3.2000 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Sirohi stands merged in the judgment and decree dated 2.9.2003 passed by the learned Board. Thus, as a matter of fact, in absence of the challenge to the Appellate decree passed by the Board, the writ petition preferred by the petitioners deserves to be dismissed on this count alone. That apart, there is no explanation whatsoever in the petition as to what prevented the petitioners from filing the petition assailing the validity of the said orders for all these years. Thus, the writ petition suffers from the vice of gross delay and latches. The petition deserves to be dismissed for this reason also. Moreover, the only contention raised on behalf of the petitioners before the learned Board was that the Appellate Authority has erred in decreeing the suit in favour of the plaintiff Smt. Rani for entire 5 bighas land inasmuch as she had already relinquished her rights in 12 biswas of land in favour of the petitioners herein. A bare perusal of the judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Authority dated 30.3.2000 goes to show that the suit of the plaintiff Smt. Rani was decreed only to the extent of 4 bighas and 8 biswas of land. This is what precisely observed by the learned Board while dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioners. The petitioners having raised no 6 other ground before the learned Board, cannot be permitted to assail the validity of the said decision on any fresh grounds before this Court. Thus viewed from any angle, the order impugned in the writ petition does not warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of its extra ordinary jurisdiction. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. (SANGEET LODHA),J.