Honble CHAUHAN, J. –The instant case, the writ petition has been filed against the judgment and order dated 15th March 1989. passed in Appeal no. 717/84 /ceiling / Jalore by the Board of Revenue for the State of Rajasthan at Ajmer. (2). The petitioners submitted before the Board of Revenue that original assessee Jeev Raj Singh who has been substituted by his son Ratan Singh had soldthe land in 1965 and from the said transferor the petitioner purchased this land in 1979. The land purchased by them, has been acquired by the respondent No. 1 State under the provisions of the Imposition of Ceiling on the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973 read with provisions of Chapter III/B of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. Before the Board of Revenue only point urged by the petitioners, was regarding their rightto be heard and on that issue, the Board of Revenue after placing reliance on Full Bench Judgment of this court reported in Kesa vs The State of Rajasthan (1), rejected the contention of the petitioners. It has further been observed that the petitioners purchased the land from the person who had purchased the land in 1965 from the original assessee Sri Jeev Raj Singh. The said transferee was not domicileof Rajasthan and he was resident of Gujarat. Under section 30 DD of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, the transfer made to a non /domicile cannot be taken into consideration. Therefore, if the earlier transfer by Jeev Raj Singh in 1965 was not valid, there is no question of the transfer in favour of the petitioner in 1979 to have any legal sanctity. Petitioner cannot claim to possess better title than their predecessor in interest. (3). In view of the above, I do not find any illegality of infirmity in the aforesaid judgment. (4). At this stage Mr.Champawat,learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in the memo of appeal before the Board of Revenue. petitioners have raised a large number of question which have not been considered by the Board. (5). Mere raising an issue in the writ petition does not warrant the Court todecide the same unless it is argued. In the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Ram Das Shri Nivas Nayak and another (2), the Supreme Court has observed as under : "We are afraid that we cannot launch into an enquiry as to what transpire in the High Court. In the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Ram Das Shri Nivas Nayak and another (2), the Supreme Court has observed as under : "We are afraid that we cannot launch into an enquiry as to what transpire in the High Court. It is simply not done. Public Policy bars us. Judicial decorum restrains us. Matters of judicial record are un- questionable. They are not open to doubt. Judges cannot be dragged into the arena..... If a party thinks that the happenings in court have wrongly recorded in a judgment, it is incumbent upon the party.... to call the attention of the very Judges.... so the Judges record his conclusive. Neither lawyer nor litigant may claim to contradict it ex- cept before the Judge himself but nowhere else." (6). In Union of India and others vs/ N.V. Phaneendran (3), the Apex Court has held that if a party has taken various grounds before the court below and not made submissions on all of that,it is not even desirable to remit the matter to the said court. (7). It has been canvassed before me that being very hard case, this court may adopt a lenient view in this case and grant relief on the basis of equity. (8). In Madamanchi Ramappa and another V. Mathaluri Bajjappa (4), the Supreme Court has held as under : " What is administered in courts is justice according to law and con- sideration of fair and equity however important they may be, must yield to clear and express provisions of the law." (9). Similarly, in Gauri Shanker Gaur V. State of U.P. (5), it has been held by the supreme Court that "in construing a statute equity will not relieve against a public statute of general policy in cases admitted to fall within the statute and it isthe duty of the Court to give effect to the legislative intent." (10). Thus, equity can supplement to but cannot supplant the statutory provisions. In the instant case, petitioner cannot claim any equity in her favour. (11). Thus in view of the above, i do not find any force in the petition, which is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.