JUDGMENT 1. - This intra-Court appeal is filed by writ-petitioner of Writ Petition No. 6951/2003 under Section 18 of Rajasthan High Court Ordinance against the order dated 19.01.2004 passed by learned Single Judge. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge dismissed the appellants' writ petition. 2. The question, therefore, that arises for consideration in this writ appeal is whether the learned Single Judge was justified in declining to grant relief prayed for by the appellant-petitioner. 3. Facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. 4. The dispute relates to land belonging to appellants (writ-petitioners) and it arises out of proceedings initiated against them under imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973 (for short herein after "the Act") read with Rajasthan Tenancy Act in ceiling case No. 04/1992. 5. In the opinion of the Collector, the appellants who were holder of agricultural land situated in Ganganagar held the land in excess of the ceiling limits prescribed under the Act and hence, the competent authority reopened the ceiling proceedings by taking recourse to the provisions of Section 15(2) of the Act and after service of notices to the appellants and affording them an opportunity of being heard, passed an order dated 16.08.1980 (F/990/Raj/Ceiling/78/1863) for redetermination of the land. This is how ceiling case No. 4/92 came to be registered against the appellants in relation to the land in question, out of which this appeal arises. 6. By order dated 17.12.1997, the competent authority held an inquiry as per provisions of the Act and found in his detail examination that 40.02 bighas of land is in excess of the ceiling limit prescribed in the Act and hence, it had to vest in the State. This is what was concluded by the competent authority in his order : " vr% mDr foospu ds vk/kkj vizkFkhZ ds ikl fu/kkZfjr frfFk 26-9-1970 o 1-1-1973 dks 100 ch?kk Hkwfe Fkh o ifjokj Fks] lkr lnL;ksa ds vk/kkj ij og 59-18 ch?kk Hkwfe /kkj.k djus dk ik= gS 'ks"k 40-02 ch?kk Hkwfe lhfyax lhek ls vf/kd gSA ftls jkT; fgr esa vf/kxzg.k djus ds vkns'k fn;s tkrs gSA lEcfU/kr rglhynkj dks fu;ekuqlkj HkkjeqDr Hkwfe dk dCtk ysus gsrq fy[kk tkosA fu.kZ; dh izfr;ka fu;ekuqlkj 'kklu@ftyk dyDVj egksn; dks e; ewy fjdkWMZ fHkyokbZ tkosA i=koyh ckn rjrhc rdehy nkf[ky nQ~rj gksA " 7. The appellants feeling aggrieved by the order of competent authority, filed appeal before the Board of Revenue being Appeal No. 1/98/Sriganganagar. By order dated 24.09.2003, the Board of Revenue found no merit in the appeal and accordingly dismissed the same by upholding the order of competent authority. 8. It is against this order that the appellant felt aggrieved and filed writ petition, out of which this intra-Court appeal arises. Before the writ-Court, the appellants assailed the order of the Board of Revenue on two grounds only. The learned Single Judge dealt with the two grounds raised by the appellants and finding no merit therein, dismissed the writ petition and in consequence upheld the orders of competent authority and that of Board of Revenue. It is against these orders, the writ petitioners have felt aggrieved and filed this appeal. 9. This is what the learned Single Judge, while repelling the two submissions of appellants, held : "Only two objections have been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, namely that as required by Rule 5 the Tehsildar had not made enquiry, the other submission is that as required by Rule 12 the petitioner had not been served with the draft statement and therefore the entire proceedings for ceiling taken by the authorities below and the orders passed being Annex. 1 & 2 are bad. Perusal of Annex. 1 shows that the report of the Tehsildar was obtained, which has been perused by learned Collector. That apart, this objection was not raised before the Board of Revenue, which if raised would have been clearly answered whether requisite inquiry was made by the Tehsildar or not. Taking up the second objection, again this had never been the objection raised before the Court below i.e. ceiling authority or even the Board of Revenue and the question as to whether draft statement was served upon the petitioner or not, is again a pure question of fact, which cannot be allowed to be raised for the first time in the writ jurisdiction and thus, the writ petition has no force and is hereby dismissed." 10. Though learned counsel for the appellants reiterated the very two submissions before us, which were pressed in service before writ Court but we are not impressed by the submissions urged as in our opinion it has no merit. Though learned counsel for the appellants reiterated the very two submissions before us, which were pressed in service before writ Court but we are not impressed by the submissions urged as in our opinion it has no merit. In other words, the learned Single Judge seems to be right in his reasoning and approach. 11. So far as first objection is concerned, it was in relation to inquiry, as contemplated by Rule 5 of the Rules framed under the Act which was to be made by Tehsildar. According to him since no inquiry was held by Tehsildar and hence, the proceedings were illegal and bad in law. This submission was rejected by writ Court and indeed rightly by holding that even the Board of Revenue so also competent authorities in their order have made reference to the report of Tehsildar and hence, it was wrong to say that an inquiry as contemplated by Rule 5 was not held. In other words, it was held that Tehsildar did hold an inquiry as provided by Rule 5 and submitted the report, which was taken into consideration while determining the extent of land held by the appellants. 12. In our opinion also, the first submission has no force because on facts, as rightly observed by writ Court that there was compliance of Rule 5 and due report of Tehsildar was called. At this stage, we too profitably refer to the observation of competent authority made in his order dated 17.12.1997, where he has made reference to the report of Tehsildar with these words : " geus mHk; i{kksa dh cgl ij euu fd;k] i=koyh ij miyC/k lk{;] lEcfU/kr rglhynkj dh fjiksVZ] vf/kfuLFk U;k;ky; ds i=koyh o jkT; ljdkj }kjk iqu% [kksys x;s vkns'k esa fn, x, funsZ'kksa dk Hkyh Hkkarh voyksdu fd;k x;k] eqrkfcd rglhy fjiksVZ dzekad 1203 fnukad 7-4-84 vizkFkhZ euQwyflag ds ikl pd 1ch NksVh o 4 tSM esa 99-10 ch?kk Hkwfe FkhA " 13. In the light of this categorical finding with due details of Tehsildar report having been recorded by the competent authority and upheld by the Board of Revenue and then lastly by writ Court, there is no scope for its reversal in this appeal. The first submission is accordingly rejected being totally devoid of any merit and against the record of the case. 14. The first submission is accordingly rejected being totally devoid of any merit and against the record of the case. 14. Coming to the second objection, namely-that no draft statement was served on the appellants, the writ Court rejected the same by holding that it was not raised before the Board of Revenue. We also find no merit in this submission and are thus inclined to uphold the finding of writ Court on this issue. In our opinion, it was necessary for the appellants to have raised such objection before the competent authority and then before the Board of Revenue. It was, however, not done. That apart, the appellants throughout participated in the proceedings before the competent authority and raised all kinds of factual objections relating to land. It is, therefore, clear that they had the opportunity to raise all objections which they actually raised. It is, therefore, difficult to accept the plea that they were not served with the draft statement. This submission is thus also rejected. 15. Learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance upon the following decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as of this Court, such as Sri Krishna Chaubey v. State of U.P. & Anr. Smt. (2004) 13 SCC 635 ; Smt. Man Kanwar & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., RLR 2001 (2) 615 ; Raja Ram and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., 2001 (3) WLN 496 ; Madan Lal v. State & Ors., 2006 (2) RRT 1399 ; Rakha Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., AIR 1985 Rajasthan 95 and Jugal Kishore and Ors. v. SDO, Baran & Ors., RLR 1988 (2) 595 . 16. We have carefully perused the above decisions and in our considered opinion, in the facts and circumstances of this case, ratio of the aforesaid decisions have no application to this case at this stage. 17. In view of the aforesaid discussions, we find absolutely no justification in departing from the view taken by the learned Single Judge. In our opinion, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is just, proper and legal, and does not call for any interference. The order passed by the learned Single Judge, apart from it being reasoned one, is otherwise just and proper. The appeal, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed.Appeal Dismissed. *******