Honble SHETHNA, J.– Earlier ceiling proceedings were initiated for the land in question in the year1971, which were dropped under Section 15(2) of the New Ceiling Act. Lateron, they were reopened on 9.3.76 and decided by the Assistant Collector on 25.2.1980. On appeal, the matter was remanded by the Board of Revenue by its order dated 3.7.80 to the Addl. Collector, Sriganganagar for deciding the question regarding transfer of land and also on the point as to whether two adult sons Hansraj and Ram Gopal were living separately from their father after partition of the property or not ? (2). By an order dated 26.5.84 the Assistant Collector once again decided the matter against the petitioners Ram Rakh and his wife Smt. Reshi. The said order was challenged by way of two separate appeals no. 325/84 and 340/84 by Smt,. Reshi and Ram Rakh respectively. Both the appeals came to be decided by a common order dated 28.8.1989 (Annex.2) by the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue held that instead of resuming 83.06 bighas as excess land only 52.18 bighas may be resumed as it was of the opinion that 30.08 bighas of land was validly transferred to Hanuman. Thus, to that extent only the appeals were partly accepted by the Board of Revenue. However, for rest of the transfer to their son Om Prakash and daughter-in-law the Board of Revenue found against the petitioners and dismissed the claim. (3). Instead of filing two separate petitions, the petitioners have filed this joint petition against the common judgment and order passed by the Board of Revenue in appeal no 325/84 and 340/84, whereby, the transfer to Om Prakash and transfer to daughter-in-law was not accepted. Mr. Bishnoi submitted that when the land in question was the same then there was no reason for the petitioners to file two separate petitions, even though they might have filed two separate appeals before the Board of Revenue. This contention of Mr. Bishnoi cannot be accepted. I am of the firm opinion that when there were two separate proceedings by way of separate appeals before the Board of Revenue then there should have been two separate petitions and on this ground alone the petition was required to be dismissed. (4). Mr. This contention of Mr. Bishnoi cannot be accepted. I am of the firm opinion that when there were two separate proceedings by way of separate appeals before the Board of Revenue then there should have been two separate petitions and on this ground alone the petition was required to be dismissed. (4). Mr. Bishnoi vehemently submitted that while remanding the case back to the Assistant Collector the Board of Revenue in its order dated 3.7.80 has specifically directed the Assistant Collector to decide as to whether the adult son Hansraj and Ram Gopal were living separately from their father Ram Rakh after partition of the property or not and whether they should be treated as separate units or not. This submission of Mr. Bishnoi looses its importance when the Board of Revenue has dealt with the said contention in its impugned order Annex,2 dated 28.8.89. In para 5 of the impugned order at Annex.2, the Board of Revenue rejected this con- tention by holding that there was no evidence led or there was no proof to show that the land of Ram Rakh was an ancestral land. The question of considering the shares by separate units of the major sons of Ram Rakh would only arise if it is proved that it was an ancestral land. Thus, first contention of Mr. Bishnoi is rejected. (5). Mr. Bishnoi half heartedly tried to argue the point regarding transfers to daughters-in-law of Ram Rakh. Mr. Bishnoi cannot be allowed to raise this contention, because the Board of Revenue in its earlier order dated 3.7.80 had clearly rejected this contention about the shares of daughters-in-law of Ram Rakh. That finding was never challenged by the petitioners before this court. Under the circumstances, the Board of Revenue was fully justified in holding that this transfer cannot be recognised in its earlier judgment dated 3.7.80 (photo stat copy of the judgment is now produced by Mr. Bishnoi on record). (6).In view of the above discussion, I do not find any substance or merit in this writ petition and accordingly, it fails and is hereby dismissed. Stay, if any, granted earlier stands vacated. Stay petition is also dismissed.