JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioners were allotted the land by the Assistant Collector (Biswedari) temporarily on 24th August, 1961. It is further alleged that on 21st August, 1961 the possession was delivered to the present petitioners. They have also produced Annexure-1, Patta Bahi to prove the delivery of possession. On 16th January, 1962 permanent allotment was made in favour of the present petitioners. Annexure-2, parcha settlement was issued in favour of the present petitioners on 18th July, 1962. The present non-petitioners submitted the objections before the Collector, Jagir, the copy of the said objection has been produced before this Court and is marked as Annexure-8. It was mentioned there in that this was the Beswedari land and was in the 'Khudkast' of the present non-petitioners and it was not available for allotment. It was also submitted that the allotment made in favour of the present petitioners should be cancelled. On 23rd April, 1963, the objections were accepted and the allotment was cancelled by the Collector. On 22nd January, 1964, the Revenue Appellate Authority rejected the appeal of the present petitioners who were the appellants before the Court. The present petitioners preferred the second appeal before the Revenue Board which was decided on 10th October, 1966. The appeal was accepted on the ground that the State was a necessary party and the State should be impleaded as a party and, thereafter, the matter should be decided by the Collector. 2. During the pendency of the inquiry in the matter of allotment the present petitioners filed a suit under Section 188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. An application 212 of the Act was also moved before the trial court. The application was accepted and temporary injunction was issued in favour of the present petitioners. The Revenue Board vide its order dated 6th May, 197I, confirmed the temporary injunction granted in favour of the present petitioners. The suit is still pending. On 9th May, 1967, Divan Ram Singh died and his legal representatives were brought on record. On 6th July, 1967 vide Annexure-7, the matter of allotment was decided on merits and the Collector held that it is not 'Khudkast' land and, as such, rejected the objections filed by the present non-petitioners. The appeal was preferred by the present non-petitioners before the Revenue Appellate Authority which was also rejected on 20th June, 1972. On 6th July, 1967 vide Annexure-7, the matter of allotment was decided on merits and the Collector held that it is not 'Khudkast' land and, as such, rejected the objections filed by the present non-petitioners. The appeal was preferred by the present non-petitioners before the Revenue Appellate Authority which was also rejected on 20th June, 1972. Against the findings of the Revenue Appellate Authority a second appeal was preferred before the Board of Revenue. The appeal No. 1/72 was decided on 14th November, 1975 and the same was accepted. The objections filed by the non-petitioners were upheld and the allotment was cancelled. A review petition was preferred before the Revenue Board which was also decided on 7-6-1976. The order accepting the appeal is Annexure-10 and the order rejecting the review petition is Annexure-11. 3. The matter was pending for a pretty long time and the present non-petitioners filed a suit under Section 188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act before the competent Revenue Officer for the declaration of their title in which the present non-petitioners were also party to the suit. The suit was decreed on 21st May, 1973 and it was declared that the present non-petitioners are the 'Khudkast' tenants and the allotment was made in favour of the present petitioners which is not a good allotment. Being aggrieved with this finding the appeal was preferred before the Revenue Appellate Authority. The Revenue Appellate Authority stayed the operation of the decree vide its order dated 7th June, 1978. An application was moved by the present petitioners before the Revenue Appellate Authority for the appointment of the receiver. The Revenue Appellate Authority vide its order dated 12th April, 1974 appointed the receiver vide Annexure-9. It is not understandable why the present petitioner moved an application for the appointment of the receiver when he was having a temporary injunction issued under Section 212 in his favour which was also confirmed by the Revenue Board on 6th May, 1971. Being aggrieved with the appointment of the receiver the present non-petitioner preferred the appeal before the Revenue Board. This appeal was 7 of 1974. 4. Thus, two appeals were pending before the Revenue Board, one Appeal No. 1/72 and the other being No. 7/1974. The question before the Revenue Board was whether the allotment made in favour of the present petitioner is good in law. This appeal was 7 of 1974. 4. Thus, two appeals were pending before the Revenue Board, one Appeal No. 1/72 and the other being No. 7/1974. The question before the Revenue Board was whether the allotment made in favour of the present petitioner is good in law. The question before the Revenue Board in appeal No. 1/72 was whether the allotment in favour of the present petitioners was good in law or not. As far as the second appeal No. 7/74 was concerned, the question before the Revenue Board was whether the appointment of a receiver in the facts and circumstances, was good in law or not both the matters were so interse linked and inter-connected that the Revenue Board vide its judgment Annexure-10. decided both the appeals in one judgment. The appeal No. 1/72 filed by the present petitioner was accepted and it was held that the allotment was bad in law. Appeal No. 7 of 1974 was also accepted and it was held that the appointment of a receiver, in the facts and circumstances of the case, was bad. Annexure-11 is the order of the review petition passed by the Revenue Board. Being aggrieved with the orders, Annexure-10 and Annexure-11, this writ petition has been preferred by the present petitioners before this Court and a prayer has been made that the order of the Revenue Board should be quashed. 5. Mr. Agrawal, appearing on behalf of the present non-petitioners has raided a preliminary objection that the Writ Petition is not maintainable as the dispute in question relates to the different proceedings taken by the different authorities on a different cause of facts. He submits that the petitioners should have preferred the separate Writ Petitions. On the contrary, Mr. Bardar appearing on behalf of the present petitioners, submitted that the matter involved is the same and if the allotment of the land is maintained the present non-petitioners will have no right or interest over the property. If the allotment is not maintained then the petitioner does not stand anywhere. 6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by both the parties. If the allotment is not maintained then the petitioner does not stand anywhere. 6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by both the parties. In the instant case, in a suit which was filed by the present non-petitioners it was prayed that they were Biswedars of the land in dispute and they were in possession of the land as Khudkast tenants on the relevant date, i.e., on 15th November, 1959 and prior to that as Khudkast holders. They became the Khudkast tenants under the Rajasthan Zamindari and Biswedari Abolition Act, 1959 as well as under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. The matter involved in that suit which was filed by the present non-petitioner was that this land was not available for allotment as they were holding the land. On the contrary, in another proceeding initiated and which was pending before the Revenue Board the matter was that the present non-petitioners were not Khudkast tenants and the land was not available for allotment on the relevant date under Section 13 of the Rajasthan Zamindari and Biswedari Abolition Act. 1959. Thus, the question involved in both the proceedings was whether the land was available for allotment or not and the second question involved was whether the present non-petitioners were Khudkast holders or tenants and were in possession of the said land on the relevant date and time. Thus, the result of one matter leads to the decision of the other and, for this reason, I am of the view that to avoid the inconsistent orders of this Court, if one Writ Petition is filed there is nothing wrong in it. 7. Procedure can be the hand maid and cannot over-ride the law and specially the justice. Procedure is meant only for the purpose of imparting justice and technicality should not be taken into consideration Which may put impediment in giving justice to the parties. The rules have been framed, the procedure has been laid down only with the intention that the cases may be disposed of early and interest of justice is not jeopardised. After the admission of the cases the case remains pending and one or the other party may claim the right of adverse possession and right of limitation. The rules have been framed, the procedure has been laid down only with the intention that the cases may be disposed of early and interest of justice is not jeopardised. After the admission of the cases the case remains pending and one or the other party may claim the right of adverse possession and right of limitation. The rejection of the Writ Petition only on a technical ground that one Writ Petition does not lie and separate Writ Petition should be filed will not meet the ends of justice, lover-rule the preliminary objections raised by Mr. Agrawal counsel for the non-petitioners and hold that the present Writ Petition can be heard on merits. 8. This Court while sitting in its original jurisdiction in exercise of the powers vested in it Under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution is having very limited jurisdiction. The disputed questions of facts cannot be looked into and should not be looked into as far as practicable. However, there may be an exception to this rule, but the exception will have to be exercised very sparingly and should not be used now and then. In the instant case there is a finding of fact in a suit filed under Section 188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act that the present non-petitioners were the Khudkast holders and the Khudkast tenants of the disputed land and the were in the possession of the land prior to the coming into force of the Act of 1959. This is a finding of fact and the matter is subjudice before the appellate court. The question of fact can only be examined by the appellate court and the present petitioners have preferred the appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority. The Revenue Appellate Authority is ceased of the matter since 1973. It is very surprising that 13 years have elapsed and the Revenue Appellate Authority could not decide the appeal. This reflects the condition of the working of the Revenue Appellate Authority. Parties generally lose the faith by such abnormal delays which could be avoided. Though technically judicial courts are not answerable to the public or to anyone else yet they are answerable to the spirit of the Constitution that there should be a justice and not the delayed justice. The pendency of this appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority reflects on the working system. Though technically judicial courts are not answerable to the public or to anyone else yet they are answerable to the spirit of the Constitution that there should be a justice and not the delayed justice. The pendency of this appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority reflects on the working system. Similarly, the objections which have been filed since 1962 could not be decided by the Collector Jagir upto this time. The suit was filed in the year 1966 under Section 188. The suit is pending before the Assistant Collector for the last 20 years. This also reflects how lightly the matter has been taken by the Court below, the appeal and the suit both are pending. 9. Mr. Bardar, appearing on behalf of the present petitioners, has invited my attention to Annexure-3 the objections filed by the non-petitioners in which a prayer has been made by the non-petitioners that the allotment and possession of Ram Singh Divan may be cancelled. He has also invited my attention to Annexure-4, Annexure-5 and Annexure-6, the Revenue Record entries. He has also invited my attention to Annexure-14 certified copy of the order passed by the District Magistrate, Alwar on 17th September, 1977. He has also invited my attention to Annexure-13, the statement of Patwari. Mr. Agrawal appearing on behalf of the non-petitioners has invited attention to Annexure R-1 and R-2 and has tried to emphasise that his client was in possession of the property on the relevant date and particularly on Samwat Year 2014 and 2015. Any observations made by this Court may prejudice the regular suit and the regular appeal which is pending before the Tribunals below. I will not like to make any observations in the matter except that the disputed questions of fact are involved in this case and it will not be in the interest of parties to decide the matter in the Writ jurisdiction on the disputed questions of facts. I here by direct the Revenue Appellate Authority to decide the appeal within a period of four months. I here by further direct the Assistant Collector before whom the suit is pending to decide the suit within a period of six months. I further direct that the judgment of the Revenue Board shall not be considered for the purpose of the decision of the appeal and the suit on merits. I here by further direct the Assistant Collector before whom the suit is pending to decide the suit within a period of six months. I further direct that the judgment of the Revenue Board shall not be considered for the purpose of the decision of the appeal and the suit on merits. The regular Court shall not take the note of the judgment of Revenue Board while deciding the appeal of the regular suit on merits. It will not be out of place here to mention that in case, the present petitioners succeed then they will be entitled for the allotment of the land under the Act of 1959. The State Government shall consider the matter afresh and allot the land to the present petitioners in case, the petitioners fail in the suit before the Court below. 10. With these observations the Writ Petition is disposed. The parties shall bear their own costs of the Writ Petition. A copy of the order shall be sent to Revenue Appellate Authority and Assistant Collector immediately.Writ petition dismissed. *******