JUDGMENT 1. This is a writ petition in which the jugment dated 31st August, 1990 of the learned Member of the Board of Revenue has been challenged. The said judgment was pronounced in a ceiling appeal which was preferred by Guman Singh in the Board of Revenue under section 23 of Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973 for short (the New Ceiling Act). The learned Member of Board of Revenue holding that the appeal was time barred dismissed it. 2. It will appear from the perusal of the judgment of Board of Revenue that the appeal was filed against the order of Addl. Collector, Baran dated 21.3.86. The appeal filed before the Board of Revenue was time barred. It was not the case of the petitioner before the Board of Revenue that the petitioner was not served and could not be the case., Before the learned Addl. Collector the petitioner was represented by a counsel. The learned Member of Board of Revenue taking into consideration all the material available held that there was no sufficient cause for preferring the appeal after long period and consequently dismissed the appeal. 3. It may be stated that when the case came up before this Court, this Court under its order dated 18.12.90 had directed the learned Addl. Distt. and Sessions Judge, Baran to make an enquiry in the matter as the Court felt that one of the grounds raised in the matter was that the Advocate of the petitioner did not inform him about the date fixed was the result of the appeal. The Advocate who represented the petitioner before the learned Addl. Collector was one Nand Kishore Nandwana. The Distt. Judge reported that there is no Advocate practising in the name of Nand Kishore Nandwana at Baran and this Court therefore, directed the learned counsel for the petitioner on 16th April, 1991 to make an enquiry and let this Court know the correct address and the case was adjourned. Today also the learned Advocate is not in a position to tell what is the correct name or whereabouts of the Advocate. Be that it may be, neither the affidavit of Nand Kishore has been filed nor any enquiry could be made by the learned Distt. Judge as directed by this Court because the Advocate by that name is not practising in Baran. Be that it may be, neither the affidavit of Nand Kishore has been filed nor any enquiry could be made by the learned Distt. Judge as directed by this Court because the Advocate by that name is not practising in Baran. Thus the view taken by the learned Member of the Board of Revenue that the appeal was highly beleated and there was no sufficient cause does not call for any interference. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner then tried to challenge the earlier order of Addl. Collector on merits. It will appear that proceedings were initiated under New Ceiling Act against Respondents No. 5 to 7 and others. The Revenue Board has referred to a decree allegedly made in favour of the petitioner. The copy of the judgment and decree has not been filed and only a copy of the plaint has been filed. A perusal of the plaint will show that it was filed in the year 1972 and the suit was decreed in the year 1972 itself. It does not appear from the perusal of the plaint that the petitioner ever came out in that plaint with the case that he was having the Khatedari rights in the land in dispute on 15th Oct., 1955 when the Raj. Tenancy Act, 1955 came into force and all that stated in the plaint was that the khatedar of the land in dispute namely Bhairon Singh had given a Tehrir in his favour and since then he was in possession as a tenant. The date of the aforesaid Tehrir was not mentioned. The learned counsel has shown to us the certified copy of the judgment and decree dated 8th May, 1972. A perusal of the aforesaid judgment will show that what was relied upon was that the Jamabandi was of the Samvat 2022 and not of Samvat 2012. 5. We, therefore, find no substance in this writ petition and it is hereby dismissed summarily.Writ Petition dismissed. *******