1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR -------------------------------------------------------- CIVIL WRIT No. 2670 of 1996 BHERU V/S STATE & ORS Mr. MANOJ PAREEK for Mr. SANJAY MATHUR, for the appellant / petitioner Mr. BL BHATI, A.G.A., for the respondent Date of Order : 2.1.2008 HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J. ORDER ----- By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the orders Annexure-2, 3 and 4, and prays for regularisation of land in his favour. Brief facts as disclosed in the petition are that the petitioner is a poor landless person cultivating 4 bighas of land of Araji no. 76 with his brother Mangilal. Then, it is alleged that his father Parthu was served with notice under Section 91 of the Land Revenue Act, 1956 which were replied to the effect that he is continuing in possession since very long i.e. 1962, and therefore, in pursuance of the orders passed by the State Government, the land is required to be regularised. The prayer was rejected by the Tehsildar against which order an appeal was filed, 2 and the learned Collector vide order dt. 28.7.83 remanded the matter back to Tehsildar to recommend the case of the petitioner before Allotment Regularisation Committee. This order is produced as Annexure-1. The Regulrisation Committee considered the matter, and vide order dt. 10.6.1992 declined to regularise the land. This order is produced as Annexure-2. Against this order an appeal was filed before the Revenue Appellate Authority which was dismissed vide judgment dt. 29.12.1992 (Annexure-3). Then, in para-10 it is alleged that being aggrieved by the judgment dt. 29.12.1992 the petitioner preferred a second appeal before the learned Board of Revenue, and the same was rejected vide order dt. 18.12.1995(Annexure-4). Before coming to the ground seeking to regularise the land, it was pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents that a look at Annexure-3 and 4 together would show that against the order Annexure-3, the petitioner Bheru did not file any appeal before the Board of Revenue, and therefore, the averments made in para-10 are wrong, and the person Mangilal who had filed appeal against Annexure-3 whose appeal was dismissed vide Annexure-4 has not come before this Court to assail the order Annexure-4, and therefore, the writ petition is not competent. I have perused the orders Annexure-3 and 4, and find that the contention of the learned counsel for the 3 respondent has substance. From a look at Annexure-3 it is clear that the appeal was filed before the learned Revenue Appellate Authority by two persons being Mangilal and Parthu, it appears that the appeal decided vide Annexure-1 was filed by Parthu, the father of petitioner as well as that of Mangilal, and that he appears to have died during interregnum period. It has been noticed in the order Annexure-3 that the appellants had claimed the land to be in unauthorised occupation of their father. However, the fact does remain that out of the two appellants being Mangilal and Bheru, the appeal as appears from Annexure-4, was filed by Mangilal only, and the fact does also remain that in this writ petition Mangilal has not come to challenge the order Annexure-4. There is nothing to show that along with Mangilal, Bheru was also one of the appellant, or at least party in the litigation before the learned Board of Revenue, even if the principles of Order 41 Rule 4 C.P.C. were intended to be invoked, and admittedly Mangilal is not a party here in any capacity whatever. In view of the above, in my view, the writ petition cannot be said to be competent. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed as incompetent. ( N P GUPTA ),J. /Sushil/