1 6 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6940/2009. Ram Singh & Ors. Vs. B.O.R., Raj. Ajmer & Ors. Date of Order :: 28th July 2009. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. J.R. Beniwal, for the petitioners. ... BY THE COURT: This writ petition was filed on 14.02.2008, seeking to question the order dated 19.06.1997 as passed by the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer in the reference proceedings. The Board of Revenue found illegal the questioned Mutation No. 72 dated 16.12.1970 whereby the entire 608 bighas and 5 biswas of land in the khatedri of one Malar was mutated only in the name of his daughter Mst. Kanwari because the said khatedar Malar had five sons and two daughters; and except the daughter Mst. Kanwari, the other children had illegally migrated to Pakistan. According to the Board, the entire of the said land could not have been mutated in the name of Mst. Kanwari but only 1/7th could have been allotted to her. It is sought to be suggested in this writ petition that the petitioners are the successors of the purchaser of the land in question from the said Mst. Kanwari. It is submitted that the 2 petitioners' father Jugta died in the year 1994 and the present petitioners were not brought on record and the Board has, therefore, erred in deciding the reference proceedings against dead person. It is also submitted that the land had been recorded in the name of the petitioners and their predecessors and they have acquired all khatedari rights; and the Board has been error in passing the order aimed at dislodging the petitioners from the position that has continued for long. A perusal of the record makes out that earlier, the Reference Case was decided on 25.02.1991 by the Board of Revenue and amongst others, one Chetan son of Jugta was available on record as one of the parties. Even though the said Shri Jugta @ Jagat Singh is said to have expired on 18.09.1994, the proceedings in the reference case were taken up again, as per the order dated 16.02.1994, on the application made on behalf of the non-applicants; and it cannot be said that the proceedings abated for demise of Jugta nor has it been shown if the fact of demise of Jugta was brought to the notice of the Board. In the circumstances of the case, and for the grounds as suggested, there appears no reason to consider interference in the order as passed by the Board of Revenue as back as on 19.06.1997 in this writ petition filed only on 14.02.2008. 3 Reference has also been made to the fact regarding demise of certain other persons in the year 1998, 2000 and 2002. Such facts too have no bearing on the legality of the order impugned nor make out a case for interference in this grossly belated petition. The writ petition stands rejected. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. //Mohan//