Honble CHAUHAN, J. – The instant petition has been filed against the judgment and order dated 29.4.82 contained in Annex. 3 to the petition, passed by the Board of Revenue, respondent No. 2 in which the judgment and order of the Addl. Collector, Sri Ganganagar, dated 25.2.1980 contained in Annex. 2 to the petition has been upheld. (2). Petitioner claims that he is having agricultural land in the revenue Estate of village Ravala, Tehsil Anoopgarh, District Sri Ganganagar and on commencement of the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973 (hereinafter called the Act), proceedings were initiated against him. It was held that the petitioner was having 186 bighas of irrigated land and ten bighas of barani land. The authorised officer accepted the case of the petitioner and giving him benefit of three units as he has two major sons and taking into consideration the intensity of the irrigation, allowed 64 bighas of land on each unit and in this way, vide order dt. 12.3.76 contained in Annex.1, it was held that petitioner was not having any surplus land. (3). The State Govt. in exercise of its power under Sec. 15(1) of the new Ceiling Act issued a notice to the petitioner and ultimately reopened the case vide order dated 1.2.79. While considering the case of the petitioner again, it was held that he was entitled only to retain 150 bighas of land in all the three units and an area of 39.7 bighas was declared as surplus vide order dated 25.2.80 contained in Annex.2 to the petition. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, petitioner filed an appeal before the Board of Revenue and the same has been rejected by the judgment and order dated 29.4.82 contained in Annex. 3 to this petition. Hence this writ petition. (4). This court vide judgment and order dated 3.1.95 dismissed the writ petition by observing that the points raised and sought to be argued in this petition were not raised before the courts below nor any document or affidavit was filed to the effect that such pleas had been raised. The petitioners counsel was not allowed to agitate new points. (4). This court vide judgment and order dated 3.1.95 dismissed the writ petition by observing that the points raised and sought to be argued in this petition were not raised before the courts below nor any document or affidavit was filed to the effect that such pleas had been raised. The petitioners counsel was not allowed to agitate new points. However, review petition No. 42/97 was filed by Prem Shanker, the legal heir of petitioner, on the ground that at the time of delivery of judgment, sole petitioner Mamraj was not alive as he had died inter state on 27th April, 1986 and he had not been aware of the pendency of said writ petition. This court vide its order dated 24.7.97, recalled the earlier judgment and order dated 3.1.95 and directed the re- hearing of the petition. (5). Heard Mr. M.L. Garg learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. C.R. Jakhar, for the respondent State. (6). Mr. Garg has submitted that the order dated 25.2.1980 had not been passed in strict adherence of law. The area, which petitioner was entitled to retain, had not been determined as per the provisions of the Act and the rules framed thereunder. (7). Mr. Garg placed reliance on the provisions which provide for fixation of ceiling on land holdings. Particular reliance has been placed upon Section 4 (1) of the Act, which reads as under : ``4. Ceiling areas-(1) In the case of every person not being a family and in the case of every family consisting of five or less than five members (hereinafter referred to as ``the primary unit of family), the ceiling area applicable to such person or such family shall be 18 respect. (a) Land under assured irrigation capable of growing at least two crops in a year (thereinafter referred to as the ``land under assured irrigation is acres: ................ (g) land not within categories specified in clauses (a) to (f) and falling in semi desert zone as described in the Schedule, 125 acres; and ................ (a) Land under assured irrigation capable of growing at least two crops in a year (thereinafter referred to as the ``land under assured irrigation is acres: ................ (g) land not within categories specified in clauses (a) to (f) and falling in semi desert zone as described in the Schedule, 125 acres; and ................ provided further that if the ceiling area applicable to any person or family in accordance with the section exceeds the ceiling area applicable to such person or family according to the provisions of law repealed by section 40, in that case the ceiling area applicable to such person or family will be the same as was under the provisions of the said repealed law. (8). Further reliance has been placed upon the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Rules, 1973 (hereinafter called the Rules) and particular reliance has been placed on Rules 5(1), (2) and (3), which provide for determina- tion of the ceiling area by the authorised officer after taking the report from the Committee and holding the enquiry as may be necessary to make from other source including the irrigation department and determine the question where any land is assured of irrigation from the Govt. or the private source capable of growing two crops or one crop in a year as per the manner provided thereunder. Mr. Garg further made reference to the schedule attached to the Act, which provides for various zones and Mr. Garg submitted that petitioner was entitled to have a larger area as his land was situated in semi desert zone. Mr. Garg has also submitted that the second proviso to Sec. 4 (1) clearly lays down that if the ceiling area applicable to any person or family in accordance with this section exceeds the ceiling area appli- cable to such a person or family according to the provisions of law of the old Act, in that case, the ceiling area applicable to such person or family will be the same as was under the provisions of the said repealed Act. (9). Petitioner has not raised all these issues before the Board of Revenue or authorised officer and he cannot be allowed to raise these issues first time before this court. Mr. (9). Petitioner has not raised all these issues before the Board of Revenue or authorised officer and he cannot be allowed to raise these issues first time before this court. Mr. Garg has placed before us the memo of appeal filed before the Board of Revenue, where some grounds had been taken but no affidavit has been filed by any lawyer appearing before the Board of Revenue or even by the present petitioner nor by Mamraj to the extent that issues were agitated before the Board of Revenue. Many issues are taken in the pleadings and if the same are not agitated at the time of the arguments, the court is under no obligation to consider all of them. Determination of these issues requires finding of fact after holding a detailed enquiry. (10). In Ratanlal Sharma vs. Managing Committee (1), the Apex Court has observed as under : ``All point not raised before the Tribunal or Administrative authority may not be allowed to raise for the first time in writ jurisdiction, more so when the interference in the writ jurisdiction which is equitable and discretionary is not of- course a must. (11). The same view has been taken by the Apex Court in the cases of St. Arunachalam Pillai vs. Southern Roadways Ltd. and Anr. (2); A.M. Allison vs. State of Assam (3); Cantonment Board Ambala vs. Pyarelal (4); State of U.P. vs. Dr. Anupam Gupta (5); Bhanwarlal vs. T.K.A. Abdul Karim; (6) Rajeshwari Amma vs. Joseph (7); and by this court in Khuman Singh vs. State of Raj. (8). (12). A nine Judges bench of the Supreme Court in New Delhi Municipal Council vs. State of Punjab & Ors. (9) has observed that if an issue has not been agitated by a party, it should not be dealt with as other party had no opportunity to answer the line of reasoning adopted in that behalf. Thus, we are not inclined to allow Mr. Garg to raise the same. (13). It has further been prayed on behalf of the petitioner that the case may be remitted to the Board of Revenue so that all the issues be examined there. Thus, we are not inclined to allow Mr. Garg to raise the same. (13). It has further been prayed on behalf of the petitioner that the case may be remitted to the Board of Revenue so that all the issues be examined there. It is settled law that non- consideration of one or some of the pleas by a court is a ground for review and not for appeal and as such, the appellants should have made an application for review before the Board of Revenue if they were aggrieved for non- consideration of all their grievances. In State of Maharashtra vs. Ram Das Shri Nivas Nayak and another (10), 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 is conclusive. Neither lawyer nor litigant may claim to contradict it, except before the Judge himself, but howhere else. (14). While deciding the aforesaid case, the Apex Court has relied upon the judgment in Sarad Chandra vs. Bibhabati Debi (11), wherein the said Court has observed as under : ``Where a litigant feels aggrieved by the statement in a judgment ....... most confident and satisfactory course to follow ..... is to apply to the Judge without delay and ask for rectification or review of the judgment. (15). However in Union of India & Ors. vs. N.V. Phaneendran (12), Honble Apex Court held that no doubt several contentions had been raised on merit, the Tribunal dealt with only one issue. The prayer of the party that they may be given an opportunity to agitate those issues/questions by remitting the matter of the Tribunal cannot be accepted as the parties itself had chosen to agitate a limited number of issues and there can be no justification to remit the matter. Same view has been taken by the Supreme Court in Kanwar Singh vs. State of Haryana and Ors. (13). Same view has been taken by the Supreme Court in Kanwar Singh vs. State of Haryana and Ors. (13). Thus, in view of the above, we are not inclined to accept the prayer of Mr. Garg to remit the matter to Board of Revenue, particularly in view of the fact that the Board decided the matter about 16 years ago and there can be no justification to remand the case after such a long delay. (16). Mr. Garg could not point out that on what calculations, the order dt. 12.3.76 contained in Annex. 1 was based as there is no material on record to show as what was the area covered by an assured irrigation and what area was capable of growing two crops in a year. Mere recording a finding that petitioner is entitled for retaining the land for three primary units and each unit will contain 64 bighas of land, cannot be permitted to be sustained as it is not based on any evidence. It is settled law that a finding recorded by an authority, which is based on no evidence is invalid. (17). In Folkstone Corporation vs. Brokman (14), the court observed as under: ``an order made without any evidence to support it, is in truth.......made without jurisdiction and is, therefore, invalid at law. (18). It is admitted at the Bar that the land in question is situated in command area. In the petition itself, it has been mentioned that it is a case of Rajasthan Canal Project Area. Mr. Jakhar has vehemently argued that this case has to be decided taking into consideration the provisions of Sec. 4 (1) (b) of the Act, which provides that where the land is under assured irrigation and capable of growing atleast one crop in a year, the maximum ceiling area will be 27 acres. In the instant case, petitioner has been allowed to retain land more than the permissible limit. The submission is full of substance and worth acceptance. (19). Thus, the petition is devoid of any merit and accordingly dismissed. (20). Before parting with the case, we would like to point-out that Mr. Garg has made a statement at the Bar that petitioner has not been dispossessed from the surplus land till date. This court had vacated the interim order dated 6.11.82 vide its speaking and reasoned order dated 5.1.1983. (20). Before parting with the case, we would like to point-out that Mr. Garg has made a statement at the Bar that petitioner has not been dispossessed from the surplus land till date. This court had vacated the interim order dated 6.11.82 vide its speaking and reasoned order dated 5.1.1983. Inspite of lapse of fifteen years, since then, petitioner succeeded in not parting with the possession of the surplus land with connivance of the officials responsible to enforce the Statute. In fact, this kind of inaction amounts to defeating the purpose for which the progressive legislation was enacted as it has frustrated the scheme of the Act. This is very serious matter and warrants proper inquiry. Therefore, in the special facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the Distt. Collector so hold inquiry and if petitioner is found to be in possession of the surplus land, to fix the accountability of an individual official responsible for not taking possession of land in dispute and to initiate disciplinary proceedings against him. In case, the Distt. Collector is not com- petent to initiate said proceedings, he would report the matter to the competent Authority, who shall initiate the same. Inquiry is to be concluded within ten weeks from today. Needless to say that petitioner would be dispossessed forthwith, if he had not already been dispossessed. The Distt. Collector is further directed to inform this court of the action taken in pursuance of this order. (21). Registry of this court is directed to send a certified copy of the judgment and order to the Distt. Collector, Sri Ganganagar, for strict compliance in letter and spirit of this order.