JUDGMENT 1. - There is a chequered history of long standing litigation between the parties regarding the land in question between the petitioner and the respondent No. 5, Rupli. Respondent No. 5 is in possession of the disputed land since 1971. According to the petitioner, the disputed land was resumed by the Government in 1968 and allotted to him on temporary cultivation basis by an order dated 14.6.1968. Respondent No. 5, Rupli made an application on 17.2.1971 before the Collector stating that on account of famine she could not pay the instalments of the prices of the land. Therefore, the instalments may be accepted. The Collector by an order dated 18.2.1971 (Annex. 1) ordered the Tehsildar to accept the instalments. The petitioner filed review application against the said order before the Additional Collector, which was dismissed on 14.5.1973 (Annex. 2). However, Board of Revenue allowed the revision on 15.1.1975 (Annex. 3), filed by the petitioner and directed the Additional Collector to decide the review petition. On remand, the case was transferred to the Court of S.D.O., who had powers of allotment at that time. His review application was accepted. Against that respondent No. 5, Rupli preferred appeal against the permanent allotment order before the R.A.A., which was allowed on 24.6.1977 and the matter was remanded. Revision filed by the petitioner against that order was dismissed by the Board of Revenue on 30.7.1982. However, the Board observed that it may be found out how and when the land was allotted to respondent No. 5. On remand, the matter was decided by the Dy. Collector by an order dated 7.5.1985 (Annex. 4) and dismissed the petitioner's review application as well as application for permanent allotment. The Board of Revenue also dismissed revision filed by.the petitioner against the said order by an order dated 10.1.1990 (Annex. 5). The petitioner has filed this petition and challenged the orders at Annexures 1, 2,4 & 5. Learned counsel Shri Purohit for the petitioner submitted that the land was resumed in favour of the Government. Thereafter, it was allotted to the petitioner in 1968 on temporary cultivation basis. He submitted that once it was allotted to the petitioner, it could not have been allotted to the respondent No. 5 or any other person. Since order dated 18.2.1971 (Annex. 1) passed by the Collector, the respondent No. 5, Rupli is in continuous possession of the land till today. He submitted that once it was allotted to the petitioner, it could not have been allotted to the respondent No. 5 or any other person. Since order dated 18.2.1971 (Annex. 1) passed by the Collector, the respondent No. 5, Rupli is in continuous possession of the land till today. Thus, she is in possession of the land since last 26 years. She has developed and nurished the land for all these years and paid the instalments of the land in question. In case of Brij Lal v. Board of Revenue, 1994 SC 1128 in para 5 the Apex Court has held that it would be a travesity of justice to dis-possess a person from the land after so many years. By way of this petition, the petitioner has called upon this Court to exercise its extra ordinary jurisdiction u/Art. 226 of the Constitution and prayed to quash the impugned orders dated 18.2.1971 passed by the Collector (Annex. 1), 14.5.1973 passed by Additional Collector (Annex. 2), 7.5.1985 passed by the Dy. Collector (Annex. 4) and the Board of Revenue order dated 10.1.1990 (Annex. 5). The extra ordinary powers can only be exercised when gross injustice is done. If this Court exercise the powers in favour of the petitioner then it will cause a injustice to the respondent No. 5. 2. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any substance or merit in this case. It fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.Petition Dismissed. *******