Honble SHETHNA, J.–The petitioners were allotted land in question by an order dated 25.6.98 (Annex.1). The same was challenged by one Biru Ram in appeal before Revenue Appellate Authority, Sri Ganganagar on the ground that it was allotted to him. The said appeal was allowed by the Appellate Authority on 13.12.90 (Annex.3) and the allotment order made in favour of the present petitioners was set aside. Aggrieved by that, the petitioners filed appeal before the Board of Revenue, which was also dismissed on 8.10.98 (Annex.4). Hence, this writ petition. (2). In this writ petition, the petitioners have straight away joined L.Rs. of Biru Ram as respondents No. 5(i) to 5 (vi) on the death of Biru Ram. The learned counsel Shri Kalla has produced death certificate dated 23.10.98 of Biru Ram, which is taken on record. As per the death certificate Biru Ram had died on 30.8.98, much prior to the passing of the order by the Board of Revenue on 8.10.98 in an appeal filed by the present petitioners. In my opinion, on the death of Biru Ram, the petitioners should have first applied before the Board of Revenue to bring his L.Rs. on record. Without bringing them on record before the Board of Revenue, the petitioners can- not join them here in this writ petition as L.Rs. of Biru Ram as party respondents. As such, this writ petition is, therefore, not maintainable. (3). On merits, Mr. Kalla, learned counsel for the petitioner tried to rely upon the judgment of the Apex Court in case of Tej Singh vs. State of Raj. & Ors.(1) and also relied upon the judgment of this Court (Honble Dr. Justice B.S. Chouhan) in case of Gopi Ram vs. State of Raj. & Ors. (2) and submitted that the petitioners are in possession of the land since 1988. They have improved the land in question, therefore, after the lapse of ten years, they cannot be evicted even though the order passed by the Courts below are valid. In Tej Singhs case (supra), cancellation order of allotment of land was passed on the ground of having procured the same by con- cealing the fact at the time of application and allotment that he was neither bonafide agriculturist nor a landless person. In Tej Singhs case (supra), cancellation order of allotment of land was passed on the ground of having procured the same by con- cealing the fact at the time of application and allotment that he was neither bonafide agriculturist nor a landless person. In that case, the petitioner was Gram Sevak, who had resigned after five years and took up his profession as an agriculturist and continued to cultivate that land personally for about 20 years. Under the circumstances, the Apex Court, while holding that the cancellation of allotment, though valid but set aside the same. In case of Gopi Ram (supra) almost similar facts were there. He was also a Government servant, which fact was suppressed by him. The allotment was made way back in 1982 and he continued to develop and enjoy the possession of the land for several years. Under the circumstances, this Court held the cancellation of allotment order as unreasonable. (4). Coming to the facts of this case, Biru Ram claimed the allotment of that land and as soon as the allotment was made in favour of the present petitioners in 1988, he challenged the same by way of an appeal before the Appellate Authority i.e. RAA, which allowed his appeal and set aside the allotment order. Against that order, the present petitioners filed an appeal before the Board of Revenue, which unfortunately came to be decided after as many as 8 years in 1988. Under the circumstances, the aforesaid judgments cited by learned counsel Shri Kalla have no application to the facts of this case. Going through the orders passed by the authorities below, it cannot be said that the authorities below have committed any error much less jurisdictional error or erred in any law which calls for any interference by this Court under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India. In view of the above discussions, this writ petition fails and is dismissed.