1 D. B. CIVIL SPECIAL APEAL (W) NO.549/98 HASTIMAL & OTHERS V. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT ::: 25-03-2008 HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTUCE MR. NARAYAN ROY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI Mr. K.S.Chauhan, for Appellants. Mr. C.R.Jakhar, for Respondent. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 14.05.1998, passed by the learned Single Judge in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No.1590/98, whereby writ petition preferred by the appellants was dismissed. The petitioner-appellants challenged the order passed by the Board of Revenue, wherein the matter was remanded to the Revenue Appellate Authority pursuant to the agreement shown by the learned counsel for the petitioner before the Board of Revenue. Learned Single Judge, while considering the arguments of the petitioner, came to the conclusion that if something has wrongly been recorded by the Board of Revenue and the petitioner is 2 having any legal issue, then he can file a review petition before the Board of Revenue. The petitioner, instead of filing a review petition, questioned the factual aspects recorded by the Revenue Board, by this appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the legal issues raised before the Board of Revenue were not decided, hence the order passed by the Board of Revenue is not sustainable. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and find that the Board of Revenue has categorically recorded the fact that though the appellant-petitioners have raised certain legal issues, but same were not pressed on the ground that if the matter is remanded back to the Revenue Appellate Authority, the petitioners would have the right of objection. The said statement, as recorded by the Board of Revenue, has not been questioned by the petitioners by filing a review petition, because this is purely a factual aspect which can be rectified or reviewed only by the Board of Revenue, therefore, while dismissing the writ petition, the learned Single Judge gave liberty to the petitioners to file a review 3 petition, strangely enough, that instead of filing a review petition, the appellants preferred this appeal. In view of the discussion made above and in the impugned judgment, we find that there is no error in finding recorded therein. Hence, no judicial review is now permissible in the present appeal. Thus, the appeal so preferred by the appellants deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. (M.N. BHANDARI), J. (NARAYAN ROY), C.J. scd