Hon'ble MAHESHWARI, J.— This special appeal is directed against the order dated 10.05.2001 whereby the learned Single Judge of this Court has dismissed the writ petition (CWP No.1707/2001) filed by the petitioners-appellants in challenge to the order dated 05.02.2001 as passed by the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer ('the Board') in Revision Petition No.175/2000 whereby the Board had affirmed the order dated 22.09.2000 as passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Hanumangarh ('the RAA') in Appeal No.20/2000. By the order dated 22.09.2000, the RAA had set aside an order dated 13.07.2000 as passed by the Assistant Collector, Rawatsar in the applications moved by the petitioners-appellants, purportedly under Section 15-AAA of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 ('the Act of 1955') seeking khatedari rights in the land in question. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the relevant facts and background aspects of the matter could be taken into comprehension thus: The petitioners-appellants Pooran Ram and Saheb Ram and the contesting respondents Mst. Gora, Mst. Gita and Mst. Barji are the decedents of a common ancestor Gugan Ram who had five sons: Dula Ram, Dungar Ram, Girdhari, Ganga Ram and Khumana Ram. The contesting respondents are the daughters of Dula Ram whereas the petitioners-appellants are the sons of Dungar Ram. Dula Ram, father of contesting respondents, expired in the year 1976. 3. The contesting respondents made an application seeking khatedari rights per Section 15-AAA of the Act of 1955 in relation to 85 bighas and 10 biswas of agricultural land situated at Chak 5 NWD and Chak 2 NWD. By an order dated 25.02.1988, the Assistant Collector partly allowed the application so moved by the contesting respondents after noticing that their father Dula Ram had been in cultivatory possession of such 85 bighas and 10 biswas land before Svt. Year 2012. However, after applying the provisions of Agricultural Land Ceiling, the Assistant Collector found the applicants, daughters of Dula Ram, entitled to be granted khatedari rights only in relation to 43 bighas of command land; and, accordingly, conferred khatedari rights in relation to 25 bighas of land as comprised in Murraba No.215/6 at Chak 5 NWD free of cost and 18 bighas of land as comprised in Murraba No.235/4 at Chak 5 NWD on the price of Rs.1400/- per bigha. The learned Assistant Collector, however, declared the remaining part of the land, said to be comprised in Murraba No.235/4 at Chak 5 NWD and in Murraba Nos.234/60 and 234/61 at Chak 2 NWD, as the government land. 4. The present appellants preferred an appeal against the said order dated 25.02.1988 whereupon the matter was remanded to the Assistant Collector who, after remand, proceeded to decide the matter by the order dated 26.04.1990. The learned Assistant Collector referred to the submissions made on behalf of the present appellants that the land situated at Chak 2 NWD was recorded in the name of their grand father Gugan Ram and after his death, his sons inherited the tenancy rights; and found that while Dula Ram's daughters were not entitled to any land beyond 43 bighas but then, the sons of Gugan Ram had the rights in relation to 37 bighas of land situated at Chak 2 NWD; and, after calculating the share available in relation to the branch of Dungar Ram, father of appellants, held the appellants entitled to the khatedari rights in relation to 7 bighas and 8 biswas of land and ordered such grant of khatedari rights from out of the land comprised in Murraba No.234/60 at Chak 2 NWD. The learned Assistant Collector, however, ordered that the remaining shall be recorded as the government land. 5. The aforesaid order dated 26.04.1990 as passed by the Assistant Collector, Nohar was questioned by way of separate appeals by the present contesting parties. The learned RAA, however, dismissed both the appeals by the order dated 09.07.1990. Against the order so passed by the learned RAA on 09.07.1990, the contesting respondents, daughters of Dula Ram, preferred a revision petition (No.122/Ganganagar/1990) before the Board that came to be decided by the order dated 25.06.1991. The learned Member of the Board, though approved the orders aforesaid so far granting of khatedari rights in 43 bighas of land to the daughters of Dula Ram was concerned but then, did not approve of the other part of the orders granting khatedari rights to Pooran Ram (appellant) and declaring the remaining land as government land with the observations that the concerned parties were free to adopt suitable proceedings in accordance with law but while deciding the application moved by the applicants (the contesting respondents) no such directions could have been issued. The learned Member of the Board said,- ^^nwljk iz'u ;g mBk;k x;k fd bl izkFkZuk i= dk fu.kZ; djrs le; v/khuLFk U;k;ky; dks Hkwfe dks jdck jkt /kksf"kr djus dk vf/kdkj FkkA esjs fopkj ls 15,,, ds izkFkZuk i= dks r; djrs le; dsoy izkFkhZx.k ds vf/kdkjksa dks gh r; fd;k tk ldrk gS 'ks"k Hkwfe dk D;k gksxk bl lEcU/k esa u dksbZ fu.kZ; fy;k tk ldrk gS vkSj u dksbZ vkns'k fn;k tk ldrk gSA ;fn 'ks"k cph gqbZ Hkwfe jkT; ljdkj dks feyuh gS rks mlds fy;s dkuwu ds vuqlkj tks dk;Zokgh dh tkuh pkfg, ogh dk;Zokgh ljdkj dks djuh pkfg;sA fcuk bl izdkj dh dk;Zokgh ds Hkwfe dks jdck jkt ?kksf"kr ugha fd;k tk ldrkA blh rjg ls iwj.kkjke ds lEcU/k esa fdlh izdkj dk vkns'k bl izkFkZuk i= esa ugha fn;k tk ldrkA iwj.kkjke ;fn [kkrsnkjh vf/kdkj izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS rks mldks fu;ekuqlkj mlds fy;s dk;Zokgh djuh gksxhA bu izkFkhZx.k ds izkFkZuk i= esa mldks fdlh izdkj dk vf/kdkj fn;s tk lduk ;k mlds i{k esa Hkwfe dh [kkrsnkjh fn;s tk lduk lEHko ugha gSA bl /kkjk ds vUrxZr ,slk dksbZ Hkh izko/kku ugha gS fd fdlh ,d O;fä ds }kjk izkFkZuk i= izLrqr fd;s tkus ij ml Hkwfe lEc/kh leLr vf/kdkjksa ds lEcU/k esa fu.kZ; fy;k tk;s ;k iwjs ifjokj dks [kkrsnkjh nh tk;sA ftl O;fä us izkFkZuk i= izLrqr fd;k gS mldks [kkrsnkjh fey ldrh gS ;k ugha vkSj ;fn fey ldrh gS rks fdruh o dkSulh Hkwfe ij fey ldrh gS] ;g fu.kZ; ysuk bl /kkjk ds vUrxZr okaNuh; gSA vr% iwj.kkjke o jkT; ljdkj ds i{k esa fn;s x;s fu.kZ; dks dk;e ugha fd;k tk ldrkA nksuksa i{kdkj fu;ekuqlkj tks Hkh dk;Zokgh dj ldrs gSA oks djus ds fy;s LorU= gS ijUrq izkFkhZx.k ds izkFkZuk i= ds fu.kZ; djrs le; blds vf/kdkjksa ij dksbZ fu.kZ; ugha fy;k tk ldrk u vkns'k fn;k tk ldrk gSA 8- bl rjg ls ;g fuxjkuh vkaf'kd :i ls Lohdkj dh tkrh gSA jkT; ljdkj ds i{k esa Hkwfe jdck jkt ?kksf"kr djus dk vkns'k rFkk iwj.kkjke ds i{k esa fn;k x;k vkns'k fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA izkFkhZx.k ds i{k esa fn;s x;s vkns'k esa fdlh gLr{ksi dh vko';drk ugha gSA mudks ftruh Hkwfe [kkrsnkjh nh xbZ gS mruh gh Hkwfe dk vkns'k dk;e j[kk tkrk gSA** 6. It may be noticed for the purpose of basic factual matrix that the said order dated 25.06.1991 was attempted to be questioned by the present respondents by way of a writ petition (CWP No.3138/1991); however, the said writ petition was withdrawn and was dismissed as such on 25.02.1997. 7. After passing of the aforesaid order dated 25.06.1991 by the Board, the present appellants made a claim for conferment of khatedari rights in the land in question by moving applications under Section 15AAA ibid; and it is this claim of the appellants which forms the subject matter of the present appeal. While dealing with the applications so moved by the appellants, the learned Assistant Collector, Rawatsar in his order dated 13.07.2000 observed that 112.17 bighas of land had been recorded in the name of Gugan Ram; and proceeded to hold that the appellants were entitled to be conferred khatedari rights on the remaining 40 bighas of the land in question. 8. The contesting respondents herein, the daughters of Dula Ram, preferred an appeal before the RAA against the aforesaid order dated 13.07.2000; and this appeal came to be allowed on 22.09.2000. The learned RAA did not approve of the considerations adopted by the Assistant Collector and found that as per the directions in the earlier orders, only the appropriate proceedings were to be adopted but the appellants could not have been conferred khatedari rights in the applications purportedly moved under Section 15AAA because the Board had never countenanced filing of any application contrary to law; and the applications as made on 27.08.1991 were clearly beyond the period permitted by Section 15AAA for moving of such application i.e., until 30.06.1987. The learned RAA also did not approve the findings that the land in question had been of the grand father of the parties and observed that in the Jamabandi for Svt. Years 2011 to 2014, the land had been recorded in the name of Dula son of Gugan alone. The learned RAA also did not approve the findings that the land in question had been of the grand father of the parties and observed that in the Jamabandi for Svt. Years 2011 to 2014, the land had been recorded in the name of Dula son of Gugan alone. The learned RAA particularly referred to the fact that there had been a suit filed for declaration and division of the land belonging to Gugan Ram that was decided on 22.07.1987; and neither Dula Ram was joined as a party to the said suit nor the land in question was included therein though Dungar Ram, father of the present appellants, was a party thereto and he did receive the land from his father Gugan Ram. The learned RAA, of course, observed that pursuant to the order passed by the Board on 25.06.1991, it was for the government to take appropriate steps for declaring the land in question as the government land and when such proceedings had not been adopted, the position of the record shall remain unaltered. The learned RAA, of course, observed that pursuant to the order passed by the Board on 25.06.1991, it was for the government to take appropriate steps for declaring the land in question as the government land and when such proceedings had not been adopted, the position of the record shall remain unaltered. The relevant portions of the findings recorded and conclusions reached by the learned RAA could be usefully noticed as under:- ^^---------------- lgk;d dyDVj dh ;g /kkj.kk fd ;g Hkwfe la;qä [kkrs dh jgh gS lgh ugha gSA nwykjke ds firk xqxujke dks vkjkth vyx ls Fkh ftlds foHkktu dk nkok o mn~?kks"k.kk dk nkok mi[k.M vf/kdkjh us vius fu.kZ; fnukad 22-7-1987 }kjk fuf.kZr fd;k gS ftlesa fookfnr Hkwfe mlesa 'kkfey ugha gS rFkk nwykjke Hkh mä okn esa i{kdkj ugha FkkA jsLiksaMsaV dk firk Mwaxj mä okn la- 24 fu.kZ; fnukad 22-7-1987 esa Hkkxhnkj Fkk rFkk izR;FkhZx.k ds firk Mwaxj dks mlds firk xqxujke dks vkjkth vkSn gqbZ FkhA-----------** --------------- --------------- --------------- ^^--------------- izdj.k esa tks jktLo vfHkys[k izLrqr gq, gS mlds vuqlkj tekcUnh lEor~ 2011 ls 2014 esa ;g Hkwfe nwyk iq= xqxu tkV vdsys ds uke ntZ gSA rFkk [krkSuh lEor~ 2014 pd 2 ,u-MCY;w-Mh- o pd 5 ,u-MCY;w-Mh- esa ;g Hkwfe vihykFkhZx.k ds uke ntZ gS rFkk tfj, bUrdky nwyk iq= xqxu dh e`R;q ij fooknkLin Hkwfe vihykFkhZx.k ds uke ntZ gqbZ gSA vr% v/khuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk bl Hkwfe dks nknkykbZ crkrs gq, la;qä dCtk dk'r dh ekuk tkuk fujk/kkj gS rFkk jkT; ljdkj ds fo:) jsLiksaMsaV dk izfrdwy dCtk ekuk tkuk Hkh gkL;kin gS rFkk ,slk ekuk tkuk ;g n'kkZrk gS fd fo}ku lgk;d dyDVj us vius vf/kdkj {ks= ls ckgj tkdj ,slh fVIi.kh dh gSA---------------** --------------- --------------- --------------- ^^--------------- bl izdkj ;g Li"V gS fd jsLiksaMsaV la- 1 o 2 ds izkFkZuk i= la- 5@91 o 6@91 vof/k ikj gksus ls la/kkj.k ;ksX; ugha gS rFkk mä nksuksa izkFkZuk i= Hkhrj fe;kn is'k ugha gksus ls bu ij dksbZ dk;Zokgh visf{kr ugha FkhA bu izkFkZuk i= ij dk;Zokgh dj xyr :i ls vihyk/khu vkns'k ikfjr fd;k x;k gSA bl ekeys esa ;g lgh gS fd ekuuh; jktLo e.My dk fu.kZ; fnukad 25-6-1991 tks 1991 vkj-vkj-Mh- ist 468 ij izfrosfnr gS vfUre gks pqdk gS rFkk mä fu.kZ; ds iSjk 7 esa ;g Li"V fd;k x;k gS fd /kkjk 15,,, ds izkFkZuk i= dks r; djrs le; dsoy izkFkhZx.k ds vf/kdkjksa dks gh r; fd;k tk ldrk gS 'ks"k Hwkfe dk D;k gksxk bl lEcU/k esa u dksbZ fu.kZ; fy;k tk ldrk gS vkSj u dksbZ vkns'k fn;k tk ldrk gSA ;fn 'ks"k cph gqbZ Hkwfe jkT; ljdkj dks feyuh gS rks mlds fy, dkuwu ds vuqlkj tks dk;Zokgh dh tkuh pkfg;s ogh dk;Zokgh ljdkj dks djuh pkfg,A bl izdkj ;g Li"V gS fd mä fu.kZ; esa 43 ch?kk Hkwfe dks /kkj.k djus dk vf/kdkjh vih- dks ekuk gS rFkk 'ks"k Hkwfe ds ckjs esa jdck jkt djus dk vkns'k fnukad 25-2-1988 fujLr gks x;k gS rFkk ljdkj us bl ekeys esa Hkwfe dks jdck jkt ?kksf"kr djus dh dksbZ dk;Zokgh ugha dh gS ,slh n'kk esa mä fu.kz; fnukad 25-6-1991 ds izdk'k esa ;gh ekuk tk,xk fd 'ks"k cph 40 ch?kk 10 fcLok Hkwfe ds fy, ekuuh; jktLo e.My dk dksbZ vkns'k ikfjr ugha gS rFkk mä vkns'k ds vuqlkj jkT; ljdkj us mä 40 ch?kk 10 fcLok Hkwfe dks jdck jkt ?kksf"kr djus dh dksbZ fof/k laxr dk;Zokgh ugha dh gSA ,slh n'kk esa 40 ch?kk 10 fcLok ds fy, iwoZ fLFkfr vFkkZr~ vihy- ds vkjkth dk'rdkj izh-55 ntZ gksus ds bUnzkt lqlaxr gSA---------------** 9. Aggrieved by the order so passed by the RAA on 22.09.2000, the present appellants preferred the revision petition before the Board that was dismissed by the impugned order dated 05.02.2001 with the learned Member of the Board finding no case for interference. In relation to the facts of the case, the learned Member of the Board observed,- ''7. It appears that earlier the land belonged to Gugan Ram and later on of Dula Ram. Earlier the Revenue Board judgment also says that the decision regarding taking over the land as rakba raaj was not proper. The non-petitioners had applied in 1983 under Section 15 (AAA) and they got khatedari rights over 43 bighas of land upto the limit prescribed by the ceiling law.'' 10. The learned Member thereafter found that the view taken by the Assistant Collector was not in conformity with the order dated 25.06.1991 as earlier passed by the Board; and hence, the order dated 13.07.2000 had rightly been set aside by the RAA. The learned Member of the Board, while finding no case in favour of the petitioners-appellants said,- “9. The land, basically, appears to be of Dula Ram and after his death the land should go to his 3 daughters. Therefore, khatedari rights to the extent of 43 bighas had already been conferred on the 3 daughters. It is now to be checked whether this was proper under the Ceiling Act and any more land could be now given to 3 daughters under the ceiling limit or under any other law in force but there is no case made out in favour of petitioners......” 11. Aggrieved by the order so passed by the Board, the petitioners-appellants preferred the writ petition that has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge by the impugned order dated 10.05.2001. The learned Single Judge after taking note of facts and the background aspects of the case and the material on record said,- ''The Board of Revenue while agreeing with the findings recorded by the Revenue Appellate Authority dismissed the revision. It recorded that the land basically appears to be of Dularam and after his death, the land would go to his three daughters and, therefore, khatedari rights to the extent of 43 bighas has already been conferred on his daughters. 12. It recorded that the land basically appears to be of Dularam and after his death, the land would go to his three daughters and, therefore, khatedari rights to the extent of 43 bighas has already been conferred on his daughters. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioners is not in a position to contend that any of the material which has been relied on by the Revenue Appellate Authority for recording its finding which have been affirmed by the Board of Revenue do not exist or even erroneously mentioned in the order. With these precincts, once it is accepted that there has been earlier partition suit in respect of the land of Guganram in which father of the petitioners was a party and Dularam was not a party nor the property in question was subject matter of that suit, there remains no error much less any error apparent on the face of record to sustain challenge to finding that this land cannot be treated as land of Guganram, to which the petitioners' claim as coparceners on the basis of the property being ancestral origin must fail. 13. I, therefore, find no force in this petition and it is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.'' 14. Assailing the order so passed by the learned Single Judge, it has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the land in question with other holdings belonged to Gugan Ram, grand father of the appellants and merely because a part thereof got wrongly recorded in the name of Dula Ram, no right or title came existing in Dula Ram or his successors; and neither khatedari rights could have been conferred in favour of the daughters of Dula Ram in exclusion of the appellants nor the appellants could have been denied khatedari rights in the remaining 40 bighas of the land in question. The learned counsel further contended that the RAA proceeded on a wrong assumption that the land did not belong to Gugan Ram and the observations in that regard remain contrary to the record. The learned counsel further contended that the RAA proceeded on a wrong assumption that the land did not belong to Gugan Ram and the observations in that regard remain contrary to the record. According to the learned counsel, reference to partition suit filed by Khumana Ram was entirely inapt because even if the land standing in the name of Dula Ram was not included in the partition suit so filed by Khumana Ram, it could not have been assumed that the land did not belong to Gugan Ram nor such an omission by the said plaintiff could have been treated adverse to the rights of the appellants. According to the learned counsel, there was no reason that Dula Ram would have been recorded as the sole khatedar of the land in question and in the given facts and circumstances, such entries in record never created any title in Dula Ram. The learned counsel for the appellant has also endeavoured to submit that on the fact as to whether the land in question belonged to Gugan Ram, the learned Member of the Board had initially recorded such findings in favour of the appellants and the observations as made in later part of the order that it belonged to Dula Ram remain perverse. Thus, according to the learned counsel, a case for remand of the matter to the Board is clearly made out. The learned counsel for the respondents has duly supported the orders impugned. 15. Having given a thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel and having examined the record, we are clearly of opinion that this appeal remains bereft of substance and deserves to be dismissed. 16. After having examined all the relevant orders as passed in the chequered history of this litigation, we have not an iota of doubt that the applications as moved by the appellants under Sec. 15AAA were baseless and incompetent. The learned Assistant Collector in his order dated 13.7.2000 proceeded to allow the said applications on an entirely erroneous view of the matter and with an erroneous angle of approach while proceeding rather contrary to the order passed by the Board on 25.6.1991. The learned Assistant Collector in his order dated 13.7.2000 proceeded to allow the said applications on an entirely erroneous view of the matter and with an erroneous angle of approach while proceeding rather contrary to the order passed by the Board on 25.6.1991. However, the learned RAA in his order dated 22.9.2000 properly examined the facts of the case and so also the law applicable while setting aside the order so passed by the Assistant Collector essentially for three reasons: (i) that as per the order dated 25.6.1991, the appellants could have adopted suitable proceedings for their claim but could not have been conferred khatedari rights under Sec. 15AAA; (ii) that the applications under Sec. 15AAA were made much beyond the period prescribed by the statute and were not maintainable; and (iii) that on facts, there was no basis to accept the submission that the land in question belonged to Gugan Ram when the revenue records stated to the contrary and then, in the suit for declaration and partition as filed in relation to the holdings of Gugan Ram, there had been conspicuous omission to refer to Dula Ram or to the aforesaid land standing in the name of Dula Ram, the subject matter of this appeal. 17. The findings as recorded and the conclusions as reached by the learned RAA remain valid and in accord with the record. The substance of the matter remains that the land in question on which the contesting respondents laid the claim as daughters of Dula Ram was found recorded in the name of Dula Ram at the relevant time, particularly on the date of commencement of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. However, the claim of khatedari rights as made by the contesting respondents was allowed only to the extent of 43 bighas of land and was disallowed for the remaining, being hit by ceiling limit. Though the present appellants intervened in the application so moved by the contesting respondents under Section 15AAA but the Board, in its order dated 25.06.1991, had been absolutely clear and emphatic in its finding that the petitioners-appellants could not have been conferred khatedari rights in the proceedings adopted by the daughters of Dula Ram. Though the present appellants intervened in the application so moved by the contesting respondents under Section 15AAA but the Board, in its order dated 25.06.1991, had been absolutely clear and emphatic in its finding that the petitioners-appellants could not have been conferred khatedari rights in the proceedings adopted by the daughters of Dula Ram. However, looking to the purport of the impugned order, the Board clarified that the State shall be required to adopt suitable proceedings for getting remaining part of the land in question declared as Rakba Raj; and, in the same context, observed that the appellants shall be required to adopt suitable proceedings. We are clearly of view that by way of such observations, the appellants were not given any liberty or licence to claim khatedari rights per Section 15AAA ibid. 18. Moreover, the appellants had no case even on merits so far the land in question is concerned. The finding on facts that the land in question did not belong to Gugan Ram as recorded by the learned RAA has also been in accord with the position of the record when it was found that on the date of commencement of the Act of 1955, the land in question stood recorded in the name of Dula Ram alone. In fact such findings stood concluded even in the earlier round of litigation on the application under Section 15AAA ibid as moved by the daughters of Dula Ram whereupon final order was passed by the Board on 25.06.1991. Then, the conclusion that the holdings of Gugan Ram were different than the land in question is fortified by the significant proceedings where Khumana Ram, one of the sons of Gugan Ram, filed a suit in the Court of Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Nohar purportedly under Sections 88 and 53 of the Act of 1955 on 28.02.1987 seeking declaration of khatedari rights and division of holdings in several parcels of agricultural land situated at Chak 5NWD, Chak 2NWD and Chak 3 NWD while joining Dungar Ram, Girdhari and Ganga Ram, sons of Gugan Ram and the State of Rajasthan as the party defendants. With filing of written statement of admission by the private defendants, the learned Sub Divisional Officer proceeded to hold that the land as referred in the suit was the joint family property of Gugan Ram and his four sons, the plaintiff and the three defendants, were entitled to 1/4th share each and issued directions accordingly. The contesting respondents were not joined as parties in the said suit and, rather, it was suggested that Gugan Ram had four sons. Thus, nothing was stated in relation to Dula Ram, father of the contesting respondents who was admittedly the son of Gugan Ram and then, the land in question was not made a subject-matter of the said suit. The petitionersappellants cannot escape from the adverse effect of the said suit because their father Dungar Ram had been a party thereto; and indeed a written statement of admission was filed therein. In the face of such conduct of the parties and such proceedings consciously adopted, the learned RAA was justified in finding that the land in question was not referable to Gugan Ram. Apart from the said suit, the position in the revenue record had been clear that the land in question stood recorded in the name of Dula Ram alone. The conclusions as drawn by the revenue authorities with reference to the material available on record cannot be said to be unjustified. 19. The submission as made on the frame of the order of Board of Revenue neither relates to the substance of the matter nor appears correct. The observations as made by the learned Member of the Board in paragraph-7 of the impugned order had essentially been of a glance at the background facts and cannot be said to be those of categorical findings that had, in fact, been recorded in paragraph-9 of the impugned order, as reproduced hereinabove. Even otherwise, the Board was dealing with the matter in its revisional jurisdiction; and there was no reason for the Board to have upset a finding on fact as recorded by the first appellate Court. 20. Put in a nutshell, we find that there had been clear and specific finding in the earlier round of litigation that the land in question was recorded in the name of Dula Ram. 20. Put in a nutshell, we find that there had been clear and specific finding in the earlier round of litigation that the land in question was recorded in the name of Dula Ram. The learned RAA in the present proceedings, while passing the order dated 22.09.2000, has taken care to record such finding over again in clear and no uncertain terms for valid reasons as noticed supra. Standing this position, invoking of Section 15AAA ibid by the appellants could not have been countenanced being not of appropriate proceedings that the Board had left the appellants free to adopt in the order dated 25.06.1991. 21. In view of the aforesaid, we are clearly of opinion that there was no case for interference by the writ Court in this matter; and the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioners-appellants. 22. Consequently, this appeal fails and is, therefore, dismissed. No costs.