JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the appellants. 2. This appeal is against the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 17.4.2002 dismissing the petitioner's Writ Petition No. 387/95. 3. The appellants are sons of Santa Singh, who was the original assessee under the provisions of Chapter III-B of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'old Law') in respect of his holding as on 1.4.66. 4. Santa Singh has submitted declaration under Rule 12 has declared the lands held by him along with the names of members of his family alleged to be dependent upon him. 5. By order dated 25.8.71, the Competent Officer dropped the proceedings against the said Santa Singh. However, after the commencement of Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973 proceedings of ceiling under the old law was reopened under section 15(2) of the Act of 1973 on 14.4.80. Consequently, the proceedings for determining the ceiling and the holdings in the hands of Santa Singh as on 1.4.66 were initiated. According to the report of Patwari, Santa Singh and his family members were holding 78 bighas of land as on 1.4.66. As all the sons of Santa Singh were major and having children of their own, none of them was found to be dependent on Santa Singh. He was entitled to hold 46.8 bighas of land only, which is equivalent to 30 standard acres and additional land 31 bighas 12 biswas was declared surplus by order of Competent Authority dated 24th October, 1986. 6. Against the order dated 24th October, 1986, Santa Singh preferred an appeal before the Board of Revenue, which was allowed and the case was remitted back to the Collector for predetermining the case of assessee Santa Singh holding an enquiry into the question whether the land measuring 12 bighas 10 biswas in Muraba No. 29 of Chak 18 GB, which is stated to be purchased by the assessee in the name of his son, is purchased in the name of which of sons of the assessee and on what basis the said land can be included in the holdings of the assessee. 7. 7. It may be pertinent to notice here that the Board of Revenue in its order dated 29.4.88 has categorically recorded that the appeal of the assessee was confined to only two contentions namely; that he has shown number of members of family dependent on him as 9, even if two persons are not held to be members, still his family consist of 7 members and he is entitled to hold additional land for the members in addition to 5 and secondly, that inclusion of 12 bighas and 10 biswas of land in Muraba No. 29 of Chak No. 18 GB has been wrongly included in his holding only on the basis of surmises and assumption, that it has been purchased by Santa Singh in the name of his son, but no proof about said land having any connection with Santa Singh was adduced. 8. It was also contended that 6 bighas of land in the name of Charan Singh a major son of Santa Singh at Muraba No. 35 of Chak 48GB has wrongly been included in the holdings of the assessee though he is independent and staying separate from the assessee. 9. The appellants' plea that 6 bighas of land standing in the name of Charan Singh cannot be included in the holdings of the assessee, was accepted by the Board of Revenue. So far as the question about inclusion of 12 bighas 10 biswas of land at Muraba No. 29 of Chak 18 GB is concerned, the matter was remitted back to the Collector for holding an enquiry into that question and pass a fresh order. 10. Apart from these two inclusions, no challenge was made by the assessee Santa Singh, who himself was the appellant before the Board of Revenue, about holding the remaining lands to be his as on 1.4.66, which measured 59 bighas 10 biswas. 11. On remand, the issue about land in Muraba No. 29 of the Chak 18 GB was decided in favour of the assessee and the said land was excluded from the holdings of the assessee as on 1.4.66 and finally 59 bighas 10 biswas land was found to be held by the assessee as on 1.4.66. 11. On remand, the issue about land in Muraba No. 29 of the Chak 18 GB was decided in favour of the assessee and the said land was excluded from the holdings of the assessee as on 1.4.66 and finally 59 bighas 10 biswas land was found to be held by the assessee as on 1.4.66. On the basis that 59 bighas 10 biswas of land was held by Santa Singh as on 1.4.66, by allowing permissible ceiling limit 46 bighas and 10 biswas, remaining land was declared surplus by the Competent Officer on 3.8.94. 12. Aggrieved with the order dated 3.8.94, Santa Singh preferred an appeal before the Board of Revenue, which was dismissed on 10.11.94. 13. As meanwhile, Santa Singh has died, his heirs have preferred the writ petition before this Court, which has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 17.4.2002. 14. Learned counsel for the appellants has urged that as per the report of the Tehsildar, produced as Annexure-1 and Annexure-2 alongwith the writ petition, the assessee was holding only 1 bigha of land and therefore, the orders passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority suffer from an error apparent on the face of record by which Santa Singh has been held to hold 59 bighas and 10 biswas as on 1.4.66. Therefore, the order ought to have been quashed by issuing a writ of certiorari. 15. This contention, in our opinion, is not well founded. Firstly, Santa. Singh in his appeal against the first order dated 24th October, 1986 has not challenged the factum of 59 bighas 10 biswas of land to be his land holding as on 1.4.66. He has confined his challenge to the addition of 6 bighas of land in Muraba No. 35, which was entered in the name of Charan Singh, his son and 12 bighas 10 biswas of land of Muraba No. 29 in Chak 18GB, which he has declined to be held by any of the members of his family. 16. On both the issue, the assessee has finally succeeded. But, about the holdings of 59 bighas 10 biswas, the petitioner has not challenged that finding of the Collector, in the first instance, before the Board of Revenue when he has preferred an appeal, it is not now open for him to turn around and say that the finding is incorrect. On both the issue, the assessee has finally succeeded. But, about the holdings of 59 bighas 10 biswas, the petitioner has not challenged that finding of the Collector, in the first instance, before the Board of Revenue when he has preferred an appeal, it is not now open for him to turn around and say that the finding is incorrect. When he has not challenged that finding before the Board of Revenue in his appeal filed against the order dated 24.10.86 it must be held that he has abandoned this issue. 17. Apart from that fact, the respondents have also placed on record copies of land record showing certain lands standing in the name of Santa Singh during the calendar year 1965-66 which belies the stand taken by the present appellants that Santa, Singh was holding only 1 bigha of land as on 1.4.66. 18. In the aforesaid circumstances, the order passed by the Board of Revenue affirming the order of the Addl. Collector, was not liable to be interfered with by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction. Therefore, learned Single Judge was right in not entertaining the petition. Consequently, this appeal must fail and it is hereby dismissed in limine.Appeal Dismissed - Writ Petition Held Rightly Dismissed. *******