JUDGMENT 1. - Instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners against orders of Sub Divisional Officer, Phalodi dated 18.12.1976 and 17.11.1977 and order dated 21.9.2000 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority Jodhpur and order dated 28.4.2008 passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner's father jai singh was ex-Jagirdar and he was having 1075.15 bigha khudkasht land in village Shekhasar and proceedings was initiated against him under the old ceiling law in i.e Court of S.D.O., Phalodi in which report of the Patwari was called with regard to family members of Jai Singh and the Patwari filed his report on 28.5.1973 in which seven members were shown in the family of Jai Singh. The concerned S.D.O. came to the conclusion that there were seven members of the family of Jai Singh and ceiling limit in the area is 395 bigha, therefore, Jai Singh could have land up to 527 bigha and remaining land is in excess to the ceiling limit under [he old ceiling law. The learned Court also found that 27.5 bigha land has come in lie way, therefore, that was also reduced while calculating the ceiling limit and passed order to resume 536.3 bigha land on 18.12.1976. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the S.D.O., Phalodi the petitioners preferred appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Jodhpur in the year 2000 but the lame was dismissed on 11.9.2000 on the ground of delay as well as merit, thereafter, the petitioners preferred revision petition before the Board of Revenue but as per the petitioners without giving decision on the grounds raised by the petitioners the Board of Revenue dismissed the revision petition on 28.4.2008. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that all the orders impugned are erroneous because as per the definition of the "family" given in the old ceiling law does not include sons and in the present matter by birth the sons of Jai Singh were having birth right in the ancestral land, therefore, all the four members were a fact individual units but, this fact has not been considered by the Courts below, therefore, all the orders impugned may be quashed. 5. 5. After hearing learned Counsel for the petitioners, I am of the opinion that first of all no interference is warranted in this case because the petitioners are challenging the orders dated 18.12.1976 and 17.11.1977 after long delay of 24 years in the year 2000 and, further, on the ground that there is no question of not accepting the definition of family by the Courts below. The finding given by all the revenue authorities below with regard to land out of ceiling limit is perfectly justified and in consonance with law. Therefore, there is no force in this writ petition. 6. Hence, this writ petition is hereby dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******