Honble SHETHNA, J.–The status of deity is of `minor. Neither the Pujari nor any one else has got any right to sell the land and get the khatedari rights of the same in the name of some other person. It is unfortunate that in this case none else but the Pujari of `Doli Banam Mandir Mahadev Ji has unauthorisedly and illegally sold the land and get the khatedari rights of the same transferred in the name of the petitioners. The Assistant Collector and Addl. District Magistrate, Jalore by his order dated 30.11.1988 made a reference to the Board of Revenue for cancelling the name of petitioners from the khatedari rights. The impugned order at Annex.3 dated 19.9.1989 passed by the Board of Revenue clearly shows that the petitioners though served but no one remained present on their behalf. In their absence the Board of Revenue decided the reference against them by the impugned order at Annex.3. In para 5 of the same, the Board of Revenue has clearly observed that the land was belonging to `deity whose status was of a minor and no one had right to get khatedari rights of the same in their names. Under the circumstances, the reference was accepted and it was ordered that the land in question be once again entered in the name of `Doli Banam Mandir Mahadev Ji. (2). Review petition filed against the impugned order Annex.3 was also dismissed by the Board of Revenue on 28.6.90 (Annex.4). Aggrieved of these orders, this petition is filed by the present petitioners. (3). First contention raised by Mr. Chopra for the petitioners is that no notice was given to the petitioners by the Board of Revenue before deciding the reference against them. He submitted that this specific contention was raised even in review petition, but the Board of Revenue has not at all dealt with the same. It is true that specific contention was raised before the Board of Revenue that no notice was given. It is also true that the said contention has been re-produced in para 5, but the same has not been answered. It is true that specific contention was raised before the Board of Revenue that no notice was given. It is also true that the said contention has been re-produced in para 5, but the same has not been answered. But in my opinion merely because it is not answered that would not be a ground for interference by this Court, because from the impugned order at Annex.3 passed by the Board of Revenue it is clear that the petitioners were duly served and though served no one had appeared on their behalf. (4). Second submission was regarding the gross delay on the part of the Assistant Collector in making reference to the Board of Revenue. According to him there was a delay of as many as 35 years in making the reference. If such type of delay was there in some other case then perhaps this Court would have interfered, but when the transaction itself was void then the delay should not come in the way of the authority and in my opinion the Board of Revenue has rightly accepted the reference because it was clearly against the provisions of law. It is well settled law that status of deity is of minor, therefore, khatedari rights of the property belonging to it cannot be transferred to any person by way of sale or in any other manner. (5). Merely because names of the petitioners are shown in the khatedari record would not confer any powers or rights upon them and they cannot urge that having entered their names in the khatedari record, their names cannot be subsequently deleted after so many years. (6). In view of the above discussion, I do not see any substance or merit in this petition and the same fails and is hereby dismissed. Stay, if any, granted earlier stands vacated. Stay petition is also dismissed.