Honble MATHUR, J.–The orders impugned in these three writ petitions are out come of the same factual background and inter- linked proceedings under the Land Revenue Act, therefore, the same are decided by this one judgment. (2). The facts giving rise to these petitions are that by way of patta No. 7567 dated 9.6.1932 the then Sovereign of the State of Banswara granted the land in dispute to one Shri Narpat Singh in the year 1932. By the said patta an amenity against the acquisition was granted. The rights for construction of house developing orchards and use of water from river ``Kagadi were also conferred with Shri Narpat Singh and his descendants by the same patta. The land so granted was also kept exempted from levy of land revenue. (3). As stated above, though the land in question was exempted from levy of land revenue but from vikram samvat 2015 onwards the land was entered in the land revenue records as an agricultural land. After death of Shri Narpat Singh the land was mutated in the name of his son Shri Ganga Singh (respondent No.2). (4). Shri Narpat Singh prior to his death was inducted as partner in two partnership firms viz. M/s Ashoka Palace Hotel, Banswara (respondent No. 1 in SBCWP No. 5056/1994) and Ashoka Dairy Farms, Banswara (respondent No. 1 in SBCWP No. 5055/1994) (both firms are hereinafter referred as ``firms) by executing a partnership deed between existing partners and new partner Shri Narpat Singh. The land in dispute was added as capital contribution on newly added partner Shri Narpat Singh in the above referred firms. On account of death of Shri Narpat Singh the value of his share in the assets, rights and liabilities of the firms was received by his son Shri Ganga Singh under a registered document dated 7.6.1980. The mutation of land in dispute was effected in favour of the firms on 5.8.1982. (5). The Tehsildar, Banswara submitted an application dated 9.11.1984 before the Collector, Banswara under Section 82 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred as ``the Act of 1956) to make a reference to the Board of Revenue Rajasthan (hereinafter referred to as ``the Board) to cancel the mutation effected in favour of the firms on 5.8.1982. The Collector, Banswara accepted the application for reference and made an order for reference to the Board on 31.3.1987. (6). The Collector, Banswara accepted the application for reference and made an order for reference to the Board on 31.3.1987. (6). The Collector, Banswara on 31.3.1987 also decided an application bearing No. 6/86 preferred by respondent No. 2 Shri Ganga Singh with a prayer for not charging any land revenue pertaining to land in dispute being an ``abadi land. At the first instance the Collector, Banswara by an order dated 4.6.1986 rejected the application as the cause sought to be agitated was not within the purview of provisions of Section 88 (2) of the Act of 1956. The matter was reopened by the Collector, Banswara by an order dated 7.5.1986 in view of the fact that an application under Section 82 of the Act of 1956 was filed by the Tehsildar pertaining to cancellation of mutation pertaining to the same land. The Collector, Banswara by order dated 31.3.1987 rejected the application bearing No. 6/86 by holding that the land in dispute is an agricultural land. (7). The firms being aggrieved by order dated 31.3.1987 passed by the Collector, Banswara on Application No. 6/86 preferred an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Udaipur. The Revenue Appellate Authority by its judgment dated 13.6.1989 accepted the appeal and quashed the order dated 31.1.1987 passed by the Collector, Banswara holding the land in dispute an agricultural land. The Revenue Appellate Authority held that according to the contents of patta whereby the land in dispute was granted to Shri Narpat Singh, the nature of land is urban. The Revenue Appellate Authority, Udaipur by Order dated 13.6.1989 also ordered that the land in dispute be recorded as an ``abadi land. The order dated 13.6.1989 was recalled by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Udaipur by accepting an application preferred by respondent No. 2 Shri Ganga Singh under order 41 Rule 21, CPC. However, according to the averments made in the writ petition and accepted by the respondents in their reply the Revenue Appellate Authority on 29.8.1989 itself passed an order and the findings and direction given by judgment dated 13.6.1989 was reaffirmed. (8). All the parties to the petitions are also in agreement that a second appeal giving challenge to the orders dated 13.6.1989 and 29.8.1989 was preferred by respondent No. 2 Shri Ganga Singh before the Board and the same also came to be rejected by the Board vide order dated 26.7.1990. (8). All the parties to the petitions are also in agreement that a second appeal giving challenge to the orders dated 13.6.1989 and 29.8.1989 was preferred by respondent No. 2 Shri Ganga Singh before the Board and the same also came to be rejected by the Board vide order dated 26.7.1990. No further challenge was given to it, therefore, the orders dated 13.6.1989, 29.8.1989 and 26.7.1990 acquired finality. (9). Before proceeding further it is pertinent to note that the order dated 29.8.1989 said to be passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority affirming the findings given under the judgment dated 13.6.1989 and the order dated 26.7.1990 passed by the Board rejecting the second appeal giving challenge to the orders dated 13.6.1989 and 29.8.1989 are not available on record. No party to the proceedings has placed these documents on record. The judgment dated 13.6.1989 whereby the Revenue Appellate Authority, Udaipur quashed the order dated 13.1.1987 passed by the Collector, Banswara rejecting the Application No. 6/86 is available on record and the order dated 29.8.1989 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Udaipur on an application under Order 41 Rule 21, CPC is also available on record but no order dated 29.8.1989 wereby the Revenue Appellate Authority after rehearing the matter maintained the findings and directions given under the judgment dated 13.6.1989 is available on record. The order dated 26.7.1990 whereby the Board said to have dismissed the second appeal giving challenge to the judgments dated 13.6.1989 and 29.8.1989 is also not available on record. It is also pertinent to note that the documents referred above which are not placed on record are also under challenge in present writ petition. (10). As stated above, the Collector, Banswara by order dated 31.7.1987 while exercising powers under Section 82 of the Act of 1956 made reference to the Board. The Board held that the mutation entered with regard to land in dispute deserves to be cancelled in view of the fact that the land concerned stands ``abadi land in light of the judgments dated 13.6.1989 and 29.8.1989 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Udaipur. The parties to the dispute before the Board accepted and admitted the nature of land as ``abadi land in view of the orders passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority dated 13.6.1989 and 29.8.1989. The parties to the dispute before the Board accepted and admitted the nature of land as ``abadi land in view of the orders passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority dated 13.6.1989 and 29.8.1989. The Board by its judgment dated 29.4.1992 ordered to cancel the mutation entered in revenue records pertaining to the land in dispute. Though by judgment dated 29.4.1992 passed by the Board read with the judgments and order dated 13.6.1989 and 29.8.1989 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Udaipur a correction was introduced in the revenue records pertaining to the land in dispute and mutation was entered in name of Shri Ganga Singh (respondent No. 2) by canceling the mutation earlier made in favour of the firms by an order dated 8.4.1994 passed by the Tehsildar, Banswara. (11). The firms being aggrieved by the order of mutation dated 8.4.1994 preferred a revision petition under Section 9 of the Act of 1956 before the Board but the same stood rejected by order dated 17.5.1994 being not maintainable. The firms by way of filing a writ petition before this Court bearing No. 2455/94 gave challenge to the order dated 17.5.1994 passed by the Board as well as to the order dated 8.4.1994 passed by the Tehsildar, Banswara before this Court. S.B.C.W.P. Nos. 5055/94 and 5056/1994 (12). After service of notices issued by this Court in the aforesaid petition for writ the State of Rajasthan preferred two writ petitions before this Court on 21.10.1994 giving challenge to the order dated 24.4.1992 passed by the Board, orders dated 13.6.1989 and 29.8.1989 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Udaipur. (13). The State has given challenge to the orders dated 13.6.1989 and 29.8.1989 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority and the order dated 29.4.1992 passed by the Board mainly on following grounds:- (1) The orders passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Udaipur dated 13.6.1989 and 29.8.1989 are illegal as the nature of land in dispute could have not been determined by proceedings under Section 88 (2) of the Act of 1956. (2) The Board under the order dated 29.4.1992 erred while canceling the mutation entered partaining to the land in dispute by holding that the land in dispute already stood ``abadi land in light of the orders passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Udaipur on 13.6.1989 and 29.8.1989. (2) The Board under the order dated 29.4.1992 erred while canceling the mutation entered partaining to the land in dispute by holding that the land in dispute already stood ``abadi land in light of the orders passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Udaipur on 13.6.1989 and 29.8.1989. According to the petitioner State the Board while giving such finding relied upon a judgment passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Udaipur without having jurisdiction. (3). Once a reference was made by the Collector under Section 82 of the Act of 1956, it was obligatory for the Board to adjudicate the issue referred to it and it was not open for the Board to consider and base its judgment upon an order passed in totally separate proceedings. (14). Separate reply to the petition for writs preferred by the State are filed on behalf of the firms and on behalf of Shri Ganga Singh. The firms in their written while giving reply on merits also raised various preliminary objections with regard to maintainability of the petitions. The preliminary objections so raised are summarised as under:– (1) The petition for writ is bad for misjoinder of cause of action as the petitioner has given challenge to the orders which are out come of different and separate proceedings. The order dated 29.4.1992 passed by the Board pertains to reference made by the Collector, Banswara under Section 82 of the Act of 1956 whereas the orders dated 13.6.1989 and 29.8.1989 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Udaipur are out come of absolutely different proceedings. These two different causes cannot be joined and agitated in one petition. (2) The petition for writ suffers from delay and latches on the part of the petitioner. The writ petition giving challenge to the order dated 29.4.1992 passed by the Board was filed on 21.10.1994 i.e., after a lapse of more than 2 1/2 years from the date of the order impugned. Similarly, the orders dated 13.6.1989 and 29.8.1989 were passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Udaipur about a period of more than five years prior to the date of filing of the writ petition. No sufficient explanation is given for causing such inordinate delay. Beside the above, the latches also disentitles the petitioner to get any relief in the present petition. Similarly, the orders dated 13.6.1989 and 29.8.1989 were passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Udaipur about a period of more than five years prior to the date of filing of the writ petition. No sufficient explanation is given for causing such inordinate delay. Beside the above, the latches also disentitles the petitioner to get any relief in the present petition. (3) The petitioner has not approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with clean hands in as much as the order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority is an order appealable and the limitation for that is 60 days. The petitioner being failed to avail remedy provided under the Act of 1956 now want to circumvent that laps and, therefore, preferred the present writ petition. (4) The petitioner failed to avail alternative remedy to challenge the orders dated 13.6.1989 and 29.8.1989 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority by way of filing an appeal under Section 75 of the Act of 1956 and having allowed to get it barred by time now cannot maintain the writ petition. (5) The writ petition deserves to be rejected being not properly constituted. The orders passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority on 13.6.1989 and 29.8.1989 were challenged by respondent No. 2 Shri Ganga Singh by way of filing a second appeal before the Board and that appeal was dismissed much back in the year 1990, as such the orders passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority stand merged with the order passed by the Board and, therefore, lost their existence as to the capable of being challenged independently without giving challenge to the order passed by the Board. (15). Besides the above mentioned preliminary objections the respondent firms have also contested the cause on merits to defend the orders impugned. It is contended by the firms that no illegality at all is committed by the Revenue Appellate Authority while quashing the order dated 31.3.1987 passed by the Collector, Banswara on Application No. 6/86 vide the judgment dated 13.6.1989. The Collector, Banswara while exercising powers under Section 88(2) of the Act of 1956 gave a specific finding to the effect that the land in dispute is an agricultural land, without properly appreciating the contents of patta issued by the sovereign of Banswara in favour of Late Shri Narpat Singh. The Collector, Banswara while exercising powers under Section 88(2) of the Act of 1956 gave a specific finding to the effect that the land in dispute is an agricultural land, without properly appreciating the contents of patta issued by the sovereign of Banswara in favour of Late Shri Narpat Singh. The Revenue Appellate Authority in view of the fact that the Collector, Banswara gave finding with regard to nature of land after inspecting the site by a proper appreciation of contents of patta reached at a definite conclusion with regard to nature of land, as such no error at all is committed while passing the Judgments dated 13.6.1989 and 29.8.1989. It is also contended on behalf of the firms that the Board rightly rejected the reference by treating the land in dispute is an ``abadi land, in view of the judgment and orders dated 13.6.1989 and 29.8.1989 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Udaipur therefore, the mutation entered pertaining to the land in dispute too was rightly ordered to be cancelled. (16). Shri Ganga Singh in his reply empathetically defended the orders impugned. The specific stand of the respondent No. 2 is that the patta No. 7557 dated 9.6.1932 was issued by the sovereign of Banswara in favour of Late Shri Narpat Singh (father of the respondent No. 2) pertains to an ``abadi land. The land was granted by the sovereign of Banswara to Late Shri Narpat Singh for construction of palace and in this regard a plan too was approved, copy of which is placed on record as Annex. R/2/1. The palace was built over the part of the land by Late Shri Narpat Singh quite prior to vikram samvat 2015. According to the respondent No. 2 the finding of the Board to the effect that the land in dispute is an ``abadi land is based upon sound appreciation of evidence on record and the patta bearing No. 7557 dated 9.6.1932. It is also stated by the respondent No. 2 that the terms of grant of patta dated 9.6.1932 could not be changed by subsequent entries in revenue regarding nature of land. (17). No rejoinder to the reply filed by the firms and the respondent No. 2 is submitted by the petitioner State. (18). I have heard the Counsel for the parties. (19). (17). No rejoinder to the reply filed by the firms and the respondent No. 2 is submitted by the petitioner State. (18). I have heard the Counsel for the parties. (19). Shri M.S. Singhvi, Counsel for the firms empathetically pressed into service the preliminary objections with regard to maintainability of the writ petition, however, before dealing with preliminary objections raised on behalf of the respondent firms I would like to note at the threshold that the order dated 29.8.1989 said to be passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Udaipur reiterating the findings given under the judgment dated 13.6.1989 is not available on records as the petitioner has not filed the same alongwith the writ petition, though a challenge is given to it. The respondents have also not chosen to place the same on record alongwith their reply. (20). The order dated 29.8.1989, available on record as Anx.11 in SBCWP No. 5056/1994, is not the order reiterating the findings and directions given under the judgment dated 13.6.1989. The order dated 29.8.1989 (Annex.11) is an order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Udaipur accepting an application preferred by Shri Ganga Singh under Order 41 Rule 21, CPC read with Section 65 (2) of the Act of 1956 to recall the judgment dated 13.6.1989. By this order the Revenue Appellate Authority, Udaipur restored the Appeal No. 220/1987 which was earlier decided by judgment dated 13.6.1989 and ordered for rehearing of the same. The petitioner in quite unambiguous terms stated in para 16 of SBCWP No. 5056/1994 the review petition preferred by Shri Ganga Singh was accepted by Revenue Appellate Authority on 29.8.1989 and on 29.8.1989 itself after hearing the parties kept the judgment dated 13.6.1989 as it is. Meaning thereby, that the land in dispute was held to be an ``abadi land. The petitioner, therefore, accepts the position that by an order dated 29.8.1989 the land in dispute was treated as an ``abadi land but the said order dated 29.8.1989 has not been placed on record. Para 16 of SBCWP No. 5056/1994 referred above reads as under:- ``16. That Shri Ganga Singh, respondent No. 2 moved one application under Order 21 Rule 21, CPC read with Section 65(2) of the Act of 1956 for review of the order dated 13.6.1989. The review was accepted by the learned Revenue Appellate Authority on 29.8.1989. Para 16 of SBCWP No. 5056/1994 referred above reads as under:- ``16. That Shri Ganga Singh, respondent No. 2 moved one application under Order 21 Rule 21, CPC read with Section 65(2) of the Act of 1956 for review of the order dated 13.6.1989. The review was accepted by the learned Revenue Appellate Authority on 29.8.1989. A Correct Copy of the order dated 29.8.1989 is submitted herewith and marked as Annexure- . The learned Revenue Appellate Authority on 29.8.1989 after hearing the parties kept the judgment dated 13.6.1989 as it is meaning thereby that the land in dispute was held to be an abadi land. (21). It is further pertinent to note here that it was within the knowledge of the petitioner that a second appeal was also preferred against the order dated 29.8.1989 before the Board and the same came to be rejected by an order dated 26.7.1990 but copy of the same has also not been placed on record by the petitioner. The petitioner has also not given challenge to the order dated 26.7.1990 passed by the Board. The contents of Para No. 17 of SBCWP No. 5056/1994 clearly shows that it was within the knowledge of the petitioner that a second appeal was preferred against the order dated 29.8.1989 and the same came to be rejected on 26.7.1990. (22). The petitioner is seeking a writ in nature of certiorari and is also invoking supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India wherein this Court is required to examine validity of proceedings and order passed thereto by a Court or Tribunal subordinate to it. In the present case, as stated above, the petitioner has not filed a copy of the order dated 29.8.1989 which is sought to be judicially reviewed. The record of the Courts below is also not available. In these circumstances it is not at all possible for this Court to examine the validity of the order impugned dated 29.8.1989 said to be passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority. It is true that the order dated 13.6.1989 is available on record but that order is a non-existent order in view of order dated 29.8.1989 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority accepting the application preferred by respondent No. 2 Shri Ganga Singh under Order 41 Rule 21, CPC read with Section 65 (2) of the Act of 1956. (23). It is true that the order dated 13.6.1989 is available on record but that order is a non-existent order in view of order dated 29.8.1989 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority accepting the application preferred by respondent No. 2 Shri Ganga Singh under Order 41 Rule 21, CPC read with Section 65 (2) of the Act of 1956. (23). With this state of record I am is now to deal with the preliminary objections raised by Counsel for the respondent firms. (24). The first contention of Counsel for the respondent firms is that the petition for writ is bad for misjoinder of cause of action as the petitioner has given challenge to the orders which are outcome of different and separate proceedings. It is true that the orders impugned dated 13.6.1989 and 29.8.1989 were passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority exercising powers under Section 88(2) of the Act of 1956 and the order dated 29.4.1992 was passed by the Board exercising powers under Section 82 of the Act of 1956 but the Board passed the order dated 29.4.1992 in view of the findings given by the Revenue Appellate Authority by judgment and orders dated 13.6.1989 and 29.8.1989, therefore, in my considered opinion it cannot be said that the order dated 29.4.1992 adjudicates totally a separate cause to the cause relating to the judgment and orders dated 13.6.1989 and 29.8.1989. From reading of judgment dated 29.4.1992 passed by the Board it is apparent that it is mainly based on the judgment and order dated 13.6.1989 and 29.8.1989 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority. In view of it I do not find any force in the preliminary objection raised by the petitioner to the effect that petition for writ is bad for misjoinder of cause of action. (25). The second preliminary objection raised by the Counsel for the firms is that the writ petition suffers from delay on the part of the petitioner as the same was filed on 21.10.1994 giving challenge to the orders dated 13.6.1989, 29.8.1989 and 29.4.1992 without giving sufficient explanation for causing such inordinate delay in filing the writ petition. (26). By orders dated 13.6.1989 and 29.8.1989 the Revenue Appellate Authority, Udaipur while quashing the order dated 31.3.1987 passed by the Collector, Banswara on an Application No. 6/1986 held that the land in dispute is an ``abadi land. (26). By orders dated 13.6.1989 and 29.8.1989 the Revenue Appellate Authority, Udaipur while quashing the order dated 31.3.1987 passed by the Collector, Banswara on an Application No. 6/1986 held that the land in dispute is an ``abadi land. From the pleadings and documents annexed it is apparent that the orders dated 13.6.1989 and 29.8.1989 were passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority in presence of Counsel for the State. The presumption, therefore, is that the State was aware of the orders dated 13.6.1989 and 29.8.1989 on the date of their pronouncement. The State Government was having an adequate remedy to challenge the aforesaid orders by way of filing an appeal under Section 75 of the Act of 1956. The State Government did not choose to prefer any appeal giving challenge to those orders. This fact clearly shows that the State Government accepted the orders referred from reading of entire writ petition it no where reveals that what prompted the State Government to challenge the validity of aforesaid orders dated 13.6.1989 and 29.8.1989 after a lapse of period of more than 5 years. It is pertinent to note here that the State Government chose to file the writ petitions only after service of notices issued by this Court in SBCWP No. 2455/1994, M/s. Ashoka Palace Hotel vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. The conduct of the State clearly shows that at first instance the judgment and orders dated 13.6.1989 and 29.8.1989 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Udaipur were accepted by it but after receiving the notices in writ petition filed by M/s Ashoka Palace Hotel a decision was taken to file the writ petitions giving challenge to the orders impugned. No reason is given in the writ petitions even for altering the decision with regard to giving challenge to the orders dated 13.6.1989 and 29.8.1989. (27). It is contended by the Counsel for the State that being orders without jurisdiction the orders dated 13.6.1989 and 29.8.1989 do not create any right either in favour of firms or in favour of Shri Ganga Singh. According to the Counsel for the State the Revenue Appellate Authority lacks jurisdiction to decide nature of land while exercising powers under Section 88(2) of the Act of 1956, as such the delay in filing writ petitions is not fatal. (28). I do not find any force in the stand taken by the Counsel for State. According to the Counsel for the State the Revenue Appellate Authority lacks jurisdiction to decide nature of land while exercising powers under Section 88(2) of the Act of 1956, as such the delay in filing writ petitions is not fatal. (28). I do not find any force in the stand taken by the Counsel for State. It is fact admitted that Shri Ganga Singh moved an application being No. 6/1986 before Collector, Banswara with a prayer for not to charge land revenue for the land in dispute being an ``abadi land. It was the Collector, who treated the application under Section 88 (2) of the Act of 1956 and held that the land concern is an agricultural land. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 88 of the Act of 1956 the Collector after holding an inquiry in accordance with law is required to decide claim of a person as against State with regard to a property or in any right over any property. In the instant case Shri Ganga Singh by moving an application claimed right over the property (Land & Building in question) by claiming the same as ``abadi land and by alleging that he was wrongly treated as tenant. This claim could have not been decided without adjudicating the issue with regard to nature of land. The Collector, therefore, while adjudicating the application No. 6/1986 was certainly required to decide the nature of land, as such he has not travelled beyond the jurisdiction vested with him while passing the order dated 31.7.1987. The Revenue Appellate Authority by the judgment and orders dated 13.6.1989 and 29.8.1989 adjudicated appeal against the order dated 31.7.1987 and reversed the finding given by the Collector, therefore, the orders passed by it too are not beyond the jurisdiction so vested. (29). It is the position admitted that challenge to the orders referred above is given by petitioner State after a lapse of more than 5 1/2 years. This inordinate delay on part of State cannot be condoned as sufficient rights accrued in favour of the firms and Shri Ganga Singh in the period of 5 years. It is also well settled that though there is no limitation prescribed for invoking writ jurisdiction but no party can be permitted to agitate stale matters which may effect the rights accrued in favour of other parties to the lis. It is also well settled that though there is no limitation prescribed for invoking writ jurisdiction but no party can be permitted to agitate stale matters which may effect the rights accrued in favour of other parties to the lis. These rights cannot be allowed to remain open for challenge for indefinite period. (30). In the present case it is further relevant to note that no appeal as provided under the Act of 1956 was preferred by the State Government giving challenge to the orders dated 13.6.1989 and 29.8.1989 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Udaipur, therefore, it can be well presumed that other parties to the lis remained under bona fide impression that the State Government has accepted finality of the orders impugned. The State also not challenged the validity of the order dated 29.4.1992 passed by the Board for a period of more than 2 1/2 years. No explanation is given by the petitioner for not doing so for such a petty long time. (31). In view of whatever stated above I am having no hesitation in holding that the delay in filing the writ petitions disentitles the petitioner to get any relief under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. For the same reasons I am of the considered opinion that the petition for writ also suffers from latches on the part of the petitioner and that too disentitles the petitioner from getting any relief under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. (32). The petitions also deserve to be dismissed on the count that the petitioner in spite of knowing the fact that validity of the orders dated 13.6.1989 and 29.8.1989 was affirmed by the Board vide judgment dated 26.7.1990 did not choose to challenge the same. In Para No. 17 of SBCWP No. 5056/1994 the petitioner has specifically stated that the challenge to the orders concerned was given by the respondent No. 2 by way of filing a second appeal before the Board and the same was rejected. I failed to understand as to why the petitioner in spite of the knowledge about rejection of second appeal by order dated 26.7.1990 did not choose to challenge the same. The first appeal and then second appeal are continuation of original proceedings and, therefore, the orders passed by the first appellate court stood merged with the order passed in second appeal. The first appeal and then second appeal are continuation of original proceedings and, therefore, the orders passed by the first appellate court stood merged with the order passed in second appeal. In view of it, it was necessary for the petitioner to challenge the order passed by the Board in Second appeal. No relief can be granted to the petitioner without giving challenge to the order passed by the Board affirming the orders dated 13.6.1989 and 29.8.1989. (33). In view of whatever stated above the preliminary objections raised by the respondent No. 2 sustains and, therefore, the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2455/1994 (34). By this writ petition the firms have given challenge to the order dated 8.4.1994 whereby the Tehsildar, Banswara cancelled the mutation Nos. 531 and 523 in favour of the firms and entered the same in name of Shri Ganga Singh son of Late Shri Narpat Singh. (35). Before filing the present writ petition the petitioners gave a challenge to the order dated 8.4.1994 by way of filing a revision petition under Section 9 of the Act of 1956 before the Board but the same was rejected by order dated 17.5.1994 being the order dated 8.4.1994 appealable. (36). The contention of the Counsel for the firms Shri M.S. Singhvi is that the order dated 8.4.1994 passed by the Tehsildar, Banswara being wholly without jurisdiction as the land in dispute was already treated as an ``abadi land, as such the Board should have treated the revision petition maintainable. (37). Be that as it may, as the challenge to the order dated 8.4.1994 has been given by the firms before this Court under Article 226, therefore, in my opinion there is no need to examine validity of the order passed by the Board dated 17.5.1994. It is the position admitted between the parties that in light of judgment and orders passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority on 13.6.1989 and 29.8.1989 and in view of the Boards judgment dated 29.4.1992 the land in question was to be treated as ``abadi land. Once the land in question was to be treated as ``abadi land, there was no occasion for Tehsildar Banswara to restore the mutation pertaining to land in question in favour of Shri Ganga Singh. (38). Once the land in question was to be treated as ``abadi land, there was no occasion for Tehsildar Banswara to restore the mutation pertaining to land in question in favour of Shri Ganga Singh. (38). It is contended by Counsel for the State that in fact the Tehsildar restored the earlier mutation in view of the fact that the Board by judgment dated 29.4.1992 cancelled the mutation Nos. 531 and 523. I do not find any force in the contention made by the Counsel for the State in view of the fact that though the mutation Nos. 523 and 531 were cancelled by the Board but at the same time the land was also treated as an ``abadi land, therefore, there was no need to restore the mutation as it was prior to entry of mutation Nos. 523 and 531. (39). The firms have also sought a direction in present writ petition to restrain the State Government as well as Shri Ganga Singh for taking any steps for action which may effect peaceful enjoyment or right, title or interest of the petitioners over the land in question. The petitioners have claimed for this direction on basis of partnership deed executed between Shri Narpat Singh and other partners of the firms and also in view of the deed dated 7.6.1980 whereby Shri Ganga Singh said to have received value of shares of Shri Narpat Singh in the assets, rights and liabilities of the firms. The claim made by the petitioners in this regard in present writ petition cannot be decided as it shall be nothing but to clubbing of two different cause of actions. (40). In view of whatever stated above the writ petitions preferred by the State bearing SBCWP Nos. 5055/1994 and 5056/1994 are hereby dismissed. The writ petition preferred by the firms bearing No. 2455/1994 is allowed in part and the order dated 8.4.1994 passed by the Tehsildar, Banswara restoring the mutation in favour of Shri Ganga Singh with regard to land in dispute is quashed. The question with regard to rights, interest and title of the firms on the land in dispute is left open and the parties are at liberty to get the same adjudicated and decided by way of appropriate proceedings before the authority competent or before the appropriate legal forum. (41). No order as to costs.