Honble RATHORE, J.—The controversy in the present writ petition is with regard to Khud Kast land which was recorded at the time of resumption of Muafi Land in the name of Deity. (2). Similar controversy is decided by this Court in the case Ram Lal vs. Board of Revenue reported in 1990 (1) 161 and also a judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case "Ram Pratap & Prithvi Lal & Another vs. Board of Revenue & Others" reported in RLR 1993(1) 307. And relying upon the judgment in the case Ram Pratap, this Court has dismissed the similar writ petition in the case "Ram Singh Bankhan & Others vs. Board of Revenue & Others" reported in RRD 2001 (Nov.) 474 = RLW 2002 RJ 76. (3). The Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 6.1.93 in the case of Prithvi Lal has also dismissed the writ petition. The judgment rendered by the Division Bench in the case of Prithvi Lal was challenged before Honble the Supreme Court by Prithvi Lal and Honble the Supreme Court vide judgment dated 29.1.2004 without interfering with the judgment passed by the Division Bench has held that— "The High Court has elaborately considered the respective contentions looking to the facts and also the record as well as the position of law. In our view, it is unnecessary to us to repeat them again as we agree with the conclusions recorded by the High Court. (4). Thus, the view taken by the Division Bench is upheld by the Honble Supreme Court vide judgment dated 29.1.04. (5). Having considered the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners as well as the respondents and considering the ratio decided by the Division Bench of this Court as well as the Supreme Court, I find no merit in the writ petition. (6). Consequently, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.