JUDGMENT 1. - This is an unusual application filed by the petitioner Bishan Singh and Others praying that a direction be issued against the Sub Divisional Officer, Sambhar Lake and District Collector, Jaipur to comply with the order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority on 18.2.1992 and 28.11.1992. Briefly stating the petitioners' case is that in a revenue suit for declaration and permanent injunction, the. trial court passed an order on 30th January, 1992 against the petitioners. The petitioners filed an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Tribunal against the said interim order wherein the R.A.A. granted exparte temporary injunction on 18.2.1992 and after hearing the parties confirmed the same by his order dated 28.11.1992. The grievance of the petitioners is that the trial court is not complying with the orders of the appellate court and that the judicial order passed by Revenue Appellate Authority is being flouted by Sub Divisional Officer, Sambhar Lake. His submission is that Annexure-11 dated 21.9.1993 is a glaring example of the same. 2. One Ramchander Jat filed an application with a prayer that he should be imp leaded as party respondent. This application was dismissed by Hon'ble Chief Justice after bearing the parties on 8.11.1993. 3. The petitioner's counsel submitted that it is unfortunate that orders of the Revenue Appellate Authority had not been complied with by the Sub Divisional Officer and the latter has made a mockery of justice though the order is passed in accordance with law. It is submitted that it is borne out from the fard dated 21.9.1993 as to how the Sub Divisional Officer Sambhar Lake has misused his powers against the spirit of the order. 4. I can only bemoan at the attitude of the Sub Divisional Officer towards the orders of his superior. It must be understood that orders of the higher courts in hierarchy of courts have a judicial sanctity and flouting the same has to be viewed with jealousy. In fact, the petitioners before going to this court should have approached the Revenue Appellate Authority and then before the Board of Revenue as the Board itself has power. In a Full Bench case reported in 1981 RRD 429 Kalyan v. Kalyan Board have taken a serious view of the matter and held that the Revenue Appellate Authority had ample power to get its order executed. In a Full Bench case reported in 1981 RRD 429 Kalyan v. Kalyan Board have taken a serious view of the matter and held that the Revenue Appellate Authority had ample power to get its order executed. Even otherwise it is highly improper that a subordinate authority starts disobeyed the judicial order of the higher court. The Revenue Appellate Authority is a creation of the statute and exercising its powers under Section 225 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. The attitude of the Sub Divisional Officer is highly contemptuous, besides being undisciplined. But for the fact that the petitioners had not approached the Revenue Appellate Authority and the Board of Revenue in the first instance. I refuse to entertain the petition, but I cannot restrain myself from observing that even on administrative side a subordinate authority is duty bound to follow the command of the next higher authority and if they do not so, it becomes the superior officers or the superior courts to get its order implemented even after proceeding against the subordinate authorities and if any loss is caused to party then by assessing the damage from the defaulting persons. The petitioners should first approach the Revenue Appellate Authority or Board of Revenue. as they think proper and if they do not get justice, it will be open to them to approach this court again. 5. With this above observations, the writ petition is disposed of.Writ petition disposed of. *******