JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the order dated 15th September, 1995, passed by the learned Single Judge in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2981/95. By the aforesaid order, the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant. 2. Facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal may be summarised as below:- Agricultural field bearing Khasra No. 3 measuring 22 bighas and 9 biswas of land situated in village Katrosan was originally recorded in the name of Ajit Bharti, Chela of Karan Bharti. The land was cultivated by Phule Bharti. Ajit Bharti sold his Khatedari rights in the land to Bheema and Mangilal vide registered sale-deed during the year 1968. In the Revenue Record the land was shown to have been transferred to Bheema and his minor son Mangilal vide Mutation No. 79 dated 15th March, 1970. Bheema and Mangilal are alleged to have transferred the aforesaid land to the appellant vide registered sale-deed dated 25th October, 1972. When the appellant wanted her name to be entered in the Revenue Record, the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Alasan refused to accept the mutation in favour of the appellant. The appellant then moved an application before the Collector, Jalore requesting him to accept the mutation in her favour. The Collector, Jalore vide his order Rev/457 dated 18th April, 1974, accepted the mutation. The Tehsildar, Jalore submitted an application before the Collector, Jalore requesting him to quash the mutation recorded in the name of the appellant. The Additional Collector issued notice to the appellant to show cause against the quashing of mutation No. 130 dated 16-5-1974, standing in her name. The appellant made her objections before the Additional Collector, Jalore on 1st July, 1988 and 23rd September, 1988. The Additional Collector passed an order on 26th October, 1988, making a reference under Section 82 of the Land Revenue Act, 1956. The Revenue Board, Ajmer passed an ex parte order dated 27th December; 1988, allowing the reference No. 64 of 1988. Later on, the ex parte order dated 27th December, 1988, was set-aside on the application fried on behalf of Ajit Bharti and the matter was reheard and a fresh order was passed by the Board of Revenue on 26th July, 1993, allowing the reference. 3. Later on, the ex parte order dated 27th December, 1988, was set-aside on the application fried on behalf of Ajit Bharti and the matter was reheard and a fresh order was passed by the Board of Revenue on 26th July, 1993, allowing the reference. 3. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 26th July, 1993, passed by the Board of Revenue, the appellant filed S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 119/3-1, before this Court. That writ petition was dismissed at the admission stage on 11th January, 1994, with certain observation. A Review Petition No. 19/1994, was filed by the appellant praying that the earlier order dated 11th January, 1994, passed by this Court be reviewed. The Review Petition was dismissed with some further observations. Meanwhile, the appellant filed a Review Petition No. 9/94, before the Board of Revenue, Ajmer praying that the order dated 26th July, 1993, passed in Reference No. 48/89 be reviewed. The revision petition was dismissed. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 11th January, 1994. passed by the Board of Revenue in Review Application No. 9/94, the appellant filed another writ petition in this Court in which she has prayed that the order dated 26th July, 1993, passed in Reference No. 48/89/LR/Jalore and the order dated 11th November, 1934, passed in Review Application No. 3/94/LR/Reference/Jalore by the Board of Revenue be quashed and the respondent be apprehended from interfering with the cultivating decision of the appellant over the land bearing Khasra No. 3 measuring 22 bighas and 9 biswas situated in village Katrosan, Tehsil Jalore. 4. The learned single Judge dismissed the second Writ Petition bearing No. 2981/95, vide order dated 15th September, 1995, on the ground that the impugned order of the Board of Revenue did not show that any argument was raised or the attention of the Board was invited to the fact that any written argument was submitted earlier and the points were raised, which may be considered. The learned single Judge further observed that the learned counsel for the appellant tried to make out a case which was never set up earlier by him at any stage and that the order passed by the Board of Revenue does not appear to be suffering from any illegality or impropriety, and there is no scope for interference on the side of extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court. 5. 5. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties. A perusal of the order dated 26th July, 1993, (Annex. 11) passed by the Board of Revenue shows that Additional Collector, Jalore made a reference under Section 82 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue. Act seeking setting aside of the mutation Nos. 79 and 130 of village Katorsan Tehsil and District Jalore. When the matter was heard by Shri C. K. Methew, Member, Board of Revenue, it was stated before him by the counsel for the State that the land in question bearing Khasra No. 3 measuring 22 bighas and 9 biswas was (originally recorded in the Jamabandi for the period from Smvt. year 2009 to 2028, in the name of the temple deity; was mutated through sale by the Pujari Ajit Bharti to Bheema and Mangilal for an amount of Rs. 500/- in 1968, and Khasra No. 72 measuring 15 bighas 3 biswas was sold to Sohan Singh for a sum of Rs. 400/- and Bheema had further sold Khasra No. 3 to Smt. Chothi. The learned Member, Board of Revenue held that since the land belonged to deity, Pujari had no right to sell the land, and as a consequence the reference made by the Tehsildar was allowed and Mutation No. 79 dated 15th March, 1970, and No. 130 dated 3rd December, 1974, were set aside and it was directed that the land should be recorded back in the khatedari of the temple. It was this order dated 26th July, 1993, which (was sought to be quashed in the writ petition filed by the appellant and which was sought to be reviewed by filing the Review Petition before the Board of Revenue and the appellant failed to get any relief at both the places. 6. All that has been done by the Board of Revenue vide order dated 26th July, 1993, is that Mutation Nos. 79 and 130 have been set aside and a direction has been given that the land should be recorded back in the khatedari of the temple deity. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the power under Section 82 of the Land Revenue Act can be exercised within a reasonable time by the Collector and the reference made by the Collector can be accepted by the Board of Revenue only if the reference has been made within reasonable time. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the power under Section 82 of the Land Revenue Act can be exercised within a reasonable time by the Collector and the reference made by the Collector can be accepted by the Board of Revenue only if the reference has been made within reasonable time. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Additional Collector made the reference after inordinate delay and the Board of Revenue committed the mistake of accepting the reference after inordinate delay. On the above grounds, the orders passed by the Additional Collector and the Board of Revenue are challenged as illegal. 8. The learned single Judge has refused to interfere with the order passed by the Board of Revenue and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties. 9. We do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned single Judge. The appeal, therefore, deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. The appellant claims to be in possession of the land bearing Khasra No. 3 situated in Katrosan, Tehsil and District Jalore. If she wants a declaration of her rights over the aforesaid land, she may move the competent Court in accordance with law. 10. With the aforesaid observations, the appeal is hereby dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******