1 D.B.CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO. 1025/1999 Mohini Devi v. State of Rajasthan & ors. Date of order : 20.08.2008 HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. NARAYAN ROY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA Mr. S.D.Vyas for the appellant. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. This special appeal is directed against order dated 12.7.99 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition preferred by the appellant herein assailing the validity of order dated 20.7.98 passed by the learned Board of Revenue, Ajmer has been dismissed. Vide order dated 20.7.1998 , the learned Board of Revenue has affirmed the order dated 1.9.1990 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority,Bikaner , whereby the order dated 21.8.90 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (South), Bikaner, directing attachment and removal of the brick kiln being operated by the appellant and respondent no. 8 herein, on the land comprising Araji nos. 81, 82 and 83 in village Gajner, Tehsil Kolayat, district Bikaner, was upheld. Admittedly, the appellant was granted a mining lease in respect of his khatedari land comprising Araji no. 84 in village Gajner, Tehsil Kolayat, District Bikaner. Since the appellant and the respondent no.8 2 herein in the garb of aforesaid mining lease encroached upon the khatedari land of respondents no. 5 to 7 herein, comprising Araji nos. 81, 82 and 83 and started operating the brick kiln on the said land unauthorisedly therefore, at their instance, the proceedings were initiated inter alia against the appellant herein under sections 90A and 91 of the Land Revenue Act, 1956 by the Sub Divisional Officer, Bikaner(South). The learned Sub Divisional Officer after inspection of the site and due consideration of the material on record, arrived at the finding that instead of Araji no.84, the appellant and respondent no.8 herein were unauthorisedly operating the brick kiln on the land comprising Araji nos. 81, 82 and 83, which is admittedly khatedari land of the respondents no. 5 to 7 herein. Accordingly, vide order dated 21.8.90, the learned Sub Divisional Officer proceeded to issue directions for attachment of the brick kiln and dispossession of the appellant and respondent no. 8 herein from the land in question. Aggrieved by the order dated 21.8.1990 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, the appellant herein preferred an appeal before the learned Revenue Appellate Authority. The learned Appellate Authority has also arrived at a categorical finding that in the garb of the mining lease issued in favour of the appellant herein in respect of the land comprising Araji no.84, she cannot be permitted to undertake mining operation in the land comprising Araji nos. 81, 82 and 83. 3 Accordingly, the appeal preferred by the appellant was dismissed by the learned Revenue Appellate Authority vide order dated 1.9.1990. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, the appellant herein preferred second appeal before the Board of Revenue, Ajmer. After examining the matter in its entirety and objectivity, the learned Board of Revenue has also arrived at a categorical finding that the appellant and respondent no. 8 herein were operating the brick kiln in collusion with the officials of Revenue Department in Araji nos. 81, 82 and 83 . Thus, on the basis of the material on record, the courts below have arrived at the concurrent finding that the appellant and respondent no. 8 herein were operating the brick kiln unauthorisedly in the agriculture land comprising Araji nos. 81, 82 and 83 in collusion with the officials of the Revenue Department, in the garb of the mining lease existing in favour of the appellant in respect of the land comprising Araji No.84. The concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the courts below cannot be interfered with by this Court in exercise of its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, therefore, in our considered opinion, the learned Single Judge was justified in declining to interfere with the order impugned in the writ petition . There is yet another aspect of the matter. The appellant herein 4 has failed to put in the requisites for service of the respondents no. 5 and 6 in terms of the pre emptory order dated 4.4.08 passed by this Court,therefore, the special appeal as against the unserved respondents i.e. respondents no. 5 and 6 stands automatically dismissed. That apart, the appellant has also not taken the appropriate steps to bring the legal representatives of the deceased respondent no. 7 on record therefore, in terms of order dated 16.7.08 passed by this Court, the appeal as against the respondent no. 7 stands abated. It is pertinent to note that the respondents no. 5 to 7 are the contesting respondents and in their absence, no relief prayed for in the appeal can be granted in favour of the appellant. Therefore, as a matter of fact, the appeal deserves to be dismissed on this count alone. Accordingly, the special appeal fails, it is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. (SANGEET LODHA),J. (NARAYAN ROY), C.J. mathur/