JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment of learned Singe Judge dated 11.08.2005 whereby writ petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed by learned Single Judge on the ground of inordinate delay, non-joinder of the parties and in view of the fact that the petitioners failed to challenge the order by filing appeal in time. 2. The petitioners claim to be holding 1/10th share as transferee's of Sayar Kanwar in land totaling 5 bighas 1 biswa spread over three khasra Nos. 837/1, 838, 839 situated at Pali. Apart from Sayar Kanwar, Bastimal and Ghamandi Ram had each 7/40 share and Leeladevi 22/40 (11/20) in the land. All the co-sharers' name had been shown in the Jamabandi..The name of petitioners-appellants had been mutated in the place of Sayar Kanwar. Above these facts there is no dispute. 3. It appears that the land in question though entered in the land records as the agricultural land has long been used for other than agricultural purposes, for residential as well as industrial purpose. As the land has been used for non-agricultural purposes, the proceedings for resumption of the land were initiated against the tenants. It was found vide order dated 1.8.2001 that out of the entire land, 1 Bigha 10 Biswa land has been used for factory known as Kankaria Fabrics and rest of the land is covered by residential construction. After excluding the land of 1 bigha 10 biswa of Khasra No. 838 covered under the factory, rest of the land was resumed. 4. In this connection, it may be noticed that in proceedings initiated vide notice dated 20.7.2001, the appellants along with co-sharers had requested the Revenue Authorities that they will surrender the land used for non-agricultural purposes for resumption under Section 90B of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act. 5. In pursuance of this order dated 1.8.2001 on 6.8.2001, the entries were made in the land records for resuming the agricultural land except 1 bighas 10 biswa of Khasra No. 838 under the factory by demarcating the land at site vide site inspection. 6. From Annexure-12 it further appears that the report was made on 16.1.92 about resumption of land under factory measuring 1 bigha 10 biswa. 6. From Annexure-12 it further appears that the report was made on 16.1.92 about resumption of land under factory measuring 1 bigha 10 biswa. These proceedings were registered in case No. 310/2002 by Smt. Leeladevi through her son Rajkumar as her power of attorney holder, Bastimal and Ghamandiram through Parasmal as their power of attorney holder made a request to SDM-cum-Authorized Officer that the land in question has been transferred by them for residential purposes under various agreements to sell and the patta's may be given to the transferees on charging the conversion charges. 7. It also transpires that prior to commencement of these proceedings in case N. 310/2002 but after order dated 1.8.2001 the present appellant having executed an agreement to sell in favour of Anandraj S/o Parasmal Kankaria to sell their entire share in total land which included the land governed vide order dated 6.8.2001 as well as the land covered by the factory for a sum of Rs. 9,53,750/- of which he received in cash Rs. 13,750/- and has obtained a cheque for Rs. 9 lacs dated 23.8.2001 and the balance Rs. 40,000/- was to be received in cash by 26.11.2001 with further stipulation that possession of, the land which was already with the proposed transferees were declared to ' be treated with transferees under the agreement. This agreement is dated 20.10.2001 before proceedings in case No. 310/2002 were initiated. This appears to be a reason for non-inclusion of present appellants in the application moved on the next date of hearing dated 4.3.2002. In said application, the name of the proposed transferee under the written agreement for sale on stamp of Rs. 100/- acknowledging the possession under the agreement was included amongst other co-sharers of the land, by which request was made to transfer the land in question used for residential purpose to various proposed transferees under different agreement for sale entered by respective co-sharers in respect of their respective shares. 8. In the agreement to sell by present appellant reference was also made to pending appeal before the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Jodhpur with the stipulation that the appellants-petitioners shall withdraw their appeal within two weeks and in fact application was moved by them within two weeks of the agreement. 9. 8. In the agreement to sell by present appellant reference was also made to pending appeal before the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Jodhpur with the stipulation that the appellants-petitioners shall withdraw their appeal within two weeks and in fact application was moved by them within two weeks of the agreement. 9. In the chain of this events, it needs to be noticed that the petitioners-appellant had preferred an appeal No. 178/01 before the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Jodhpur challenging the order dated 6.8.2001 in which he has admitted the fact that he is not in possession of any part of the land except land under the factory and any further statement was made that land under factory is in petitioners' exclusive title and in which other co-sharers named in the appeal had no share and they have challenged the order of resumption of land considering it to be user of the land for non-agricultural purposes. Therefore, acting in furtherance of assurance contained in agreement to sell dated 20.10.2001, pending appeal before the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Jodhpur which was withdrawn on 1.11.2001 before expiry of two weeks of the date of agreement to sell. 10. It is in the aforesaid circumstances, when in terms of the request made on behalf of the remaining co-sharers Smt. Leeladevi, Basti Mal & Ghamandiram and Anand Raj Kankaria S/o Parasmal Kankaria as a power of attorney holder for allotment of land under Section 90 B to their respective transferees under respective agreement to sell executed by them. One of the co-sharers has transferred his land in favour of Ram Kishore in 2004 and Ram Kishore has filed a Civil Suit, (? against) State of Raj. & Ors.. for i permanent injunction. Surajmal & Ashokumar-two of the present appellants moved an application to be impleaded as party in the suit claiming themselves to be co-tenants and the necessary parties for raising objections about the jurisdiction of the civil court to deal with parties right in agricultural land. During this period, the petitioner served a notice through his counsel on the Municipal Council, Pali and the Senior Town Planner Circle, Jodhpur alleging that he is one of the co-sharers of the land in question and land has not been so far partitioned but without partition other co-sharers have transferred the land through unauthorized sale deeds which are ineffective. During this period, the petitioner served a notice through his counsel on the Municipal Council, Pali and the Senior Town Planner Circle, Jodhpur alleging that he is one of the co-sharers of the land in question and land has not been so far partitioned but without partition other co-sharers have transferred the land through unauthorized sale deeds which are ineffective. This application was moved on 28.2.04 in the pending suit as well as Temporary Injunction Application filed by said Ramkishore. 11. Prior to that, on 19.12.03 the petitioner gave legal notice and claimed himself the right to get patta issued out of surrendered land under Section 90 B as Abadi Land to the extent of his own share and demanded that the proceedings for issuance Patta to transferees of other co-sharers 5 may be stopped at pains of suffering civil and criminal proceedings. 12. Thereafter, another registered notice was given on 2.2.2004 raising objection about the validity of the alleged transfers made by the co-sharers. This notice was termed as supplementary to earlier notice. 13. This notice was replied to by the Municipal Council referring to the 3 aforesaid facts noticed by us, denying the claim of petitioners. After filing rejoinder, present petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment under appeal. 14. The appellants claim their pound of flesh on the ground that agricultural tenancy was surrendered vide order dated 6.8.01 by all the co-tenants in terms of Section 90B(3) of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act. Therefore, in terms of Sub Section (6) of Section 90B only the petitioners tenant who had surrendered agricultural land in terms of Section 90 B are entitled to be allotted land for themselves and that the allotment of said land to the transferees of the other co-sharers of the land surrendered stood o resumed in the State and the same be allotted to the appellants. Their share of land cannot be allotted to other co-sharers or the other transferees. 15. - From the narration of the facts, it is apparent that after the resumption of land in August, 2001 and after the appellants filed their appeal challenging the order dated 1.8.2001 and 6.8.2001 the appellants entered into 5 agreement to sell with Anand Raj Kankaria S/o Parasmal Kankaria, power of attorney of other co-sharers to sale the agricultural land for a sum of over Rs. 9 lacs consideration which was received or notice was to be received in terms of stipulation therein. There is no assertion that such consideration was not received by the appellants. The appellants had also filed appeal o challenging the order of resumption but withdrew the same in terms of stipulation contained in said agreement on 1.11.2001. These facts were brought to notice by respondents. Agreement to sell in favour of Anand Raj with acknowledging his possession under he agreement. The facts had not been denied. Apparently these were vital and relevant facts for invoking extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court. It amounts to suppressio vari. In the face of subsequent event, he cannot now be permitted to seek relief restraining in transferee's of land by other co-sharers in like manner to take dishonest advantage of his own act. 16. We also notice from admission contained in the appeal by him that he was exclusive owner of the land covered by factory in question and has also not claimed any interest in other land so much so that the appellants have admitted that while the appellants were exclusive owners and were interested in the land under factory and other co-sharers have no interest in that land and the land which was in their possession has already been transferred by them. This admission inheres thereunder on behalf of the appellants that notwithstanding joint entry in the land record, land according to him also stood partitioned. 17. Now he wants to contend that land still continues to be joint. In the face of these two inconsistent stands to suit his convenience at different times betrays oblique motive to gain unjust enrichment by invoking extra ordinary jurisdiction. No attempt has otherwise been made to explain the inconsistent pleas and his own conduct in dealing with land in question. 18. We are of the opinion that the petitioners-appellants are not entitled to any relief in exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction of this court. As a matter of fact, indirectly petitioners want to get out of the agreement to sell executed by themselves for full consideration and considering the possession of the transferees to be under the agreement to sell, against whom or whose successor in interest, they do not have any remedy, they want to retrieve their interest in the land perhaps to share the escalated land price. 19. 19. These rights of the petitioner cannot be determined by invoking the extra ordinary jurisdiction on the face of their own admission and contradictory stands taken by them on different occasion. The Municipal Council has drawn attention of the petitioner to withdrawal of their appeal and the pleas taken in the appeal and has placed on record the agreement executed by them as Annex. R7/4 in favour of Anandraj Kankaria in respect of their entire share in land in question. Notwithstanding that the document though not registered, we are called upon to give a declaration of their title over the land in question. 20. In the face of all these attending circumstances, even otherwise we are not inclined to decide these issues about civil rights on the basis of emerging facts and circumstances of the case. 21. In either case, the petition must fail on taking not consisting pleas and seeking to transfer their interest in the entirety for consideration in favour of third party after resumption of the land by notice dated 6.8.01, they are not entitled for invoking extra ordinary jurisdiction to turn the tide of equities against them. 22. The appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Since the respondents have not appeared no costs.Appeal dismissed. *******