1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R Niraj Kumar & Another Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others. S.B.Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8271/2007 ......... Date of Order : 27/05/2008 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R.PANWAR BY THE COURT Mr. G.J.Gupta for the petitioners. Mr. C.S.Kotwani for the applicant. Mr. O.P.Boob, Additional Government Counsel for respondents. By the instant writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek a direction to the respondent Additional District Magistrate (Admn.), Sri Ganganagar to decide the application Annex.1 filed by the petitioners dated 23.7.2005. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the instant writ petition as can be gathered from the material available on 2 record are that a Ceiling proceeding was initiated and the land of one Guljari Lal was taken over in the ceiling and that proceeding was challenged by Guljari Lal up to the Board of Revenue. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, the proceeding ultimately culminated in favour of Guljari Lal. Thereafter, the State filed a writ petition before this Court and the writ petition came to be dismissed, against which the State filed a Special Appeal being D.B.Civil Special Appeal No.1572/06 (DR.J.) which also came to be dismissed by order Annex.3 dated 31.10.2006. Thereafter, the petitioners being the legal representatives of the deceased Guljari Lal moved before the respondent Additional District Magistrate (Admn.) Sri Ganganagar. During pendency of the writ petition, an application being I.A. No.3585/2008 has been filed by applicants Kanuj Kumar and Manuj Kumar claiming to be the legal representatives of the deceased Guljari Lal as also claiming the land in question on the strength of Will alleged to have been executed in their favour. The petitioners also claim the land in question on the strength of the Will alleged to have been executed in their favour. These questions as to whether the petitioners are entitled to the possession of the land or the applicants claiming impleadment namely Kanuj Kumar and Manuj Kumar are entitled to the possession of the land, are the questions to be decided by the authority below and these questions involving disputed 3 questions of facts cannot be gone into by this Court in writ jurisdiction. It is open for the parties to approach to the authority below on the basis of the decision of Board of Revenue which has been affirmed by the learned Single Judge as also Division Bench, seeking possession. In the circumstances, therefore, I do not find any good ground to invoke the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court. The writ petition is therefore, dismissed. It is open for the parties to approach to the Collector or the Additional Collector, Sri Ganganagar for possession of the land as also to establish their rights to possession if they claim on the basis of the Will. The application seeking impleadment also stands disposed of. (H.R.PANWAR), J. rp