JUDGMENT 1. - Shri Sumer Singh Gaur appears on behalf of the petitioner and prays for time to file Vakalatnama on behalf of the petitioner and to seek instructions for prosecuting this writ petition on his behalf. 2. I have perused the petition with the assistance of both the learned counsel appearing for the parties even though no Vakalatnama is filed on behalf of the petitioner only with a view to find out whether this petition has any merit and what order can be passed in this petition in the facts of this case. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, I have formed an opinion that this petition can be disposed of finally by giving directions to the revisionary authority who is seized of the revision out of which this writ petition arises to decide the same on merits in case if it is not so far decided. 4. In substance the writ petitioner seeks to challenge an interim order dated 27.4.1998 passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer in Land Revenue Revision No. 166/96. Admittedly the impugned order dated 27.4.1998 is an interim order passed by the learned Member of the Board of Revenue on the application made by the writ petitioner under Section 151 C.P.C. in a pending revision. Secondly, the main revision in which interim order is passed is yet pending. Thirdly, this Court by order dated 14.1.2002 has already safeguarded interest of the petitioner by passing following interim orders:- "Heard. Admit. Issue notice. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for one month's time to make a deposit of Rs. 50,000/-. In case the deposit is made within one month, no action shall be taken against the petitioner. If the petitioner fails to deposit Rs. 50,000/- within one month to the respondent authorities, then the respondents will be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner." 5. 50,000/-. In case the deposit is made within one month, no action shall be taken against the petitioner. If the petitioner fails to deposit Rs. 50,000/- within one month to the respondent authorities, then the respondents will be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner." 5. In my considered view, therefore, when writ petitioner seeks to challenge an interim order dated 27.4.1998 then in that event, the only direction at this stage that can be given to the Board of Revenue is to ensure final disposal of revision out of which this writ petition arises being Land Revenue Revision No. 166/96 by Board of Revenue and decide the same on merits in accordance with law keeping in view the interim order passed by this Court on 14.1.2002. 6. Accordingly and in view of the aforesaid discussion, I dispose of this writ petition by giving direction to the Board of Revenue to ensure final disposal of Jaisalmer/Land Revenue Revision No. 166/96 filed by the writ petitioner under Section 84 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act within a period of three months from the date of appearance before the Board of Revenue if not so far decided. The petitioner to appear before the Board of Revenue on 5.4.2010. The Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to the Board of Revenue forthwith to enable the Board of Revenue to ensure expeditious disposal of the revision as directed. In case if nobody appears on behalf of the petitioner before the Board of Revenue on 5.4.2010, the Board of Revenue shall issue notice to the parties concerned of revision for disposal of the revision in accordance with law provided it is pending as on date before it. In case if the revision has since been disposed of either on merits or otherwise and is not found pending, then in that event the parties would be at liberty to challenge the final order that may have been passed by Board of Revenue in accordance with law before appropriate forum in appropriate proceedings.No cost.Writ Petition Disposed of. *******