JUDGMENT 1. - This Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of 3a has been Filed by the petitioners aggrieved against the judgment dated 7014 passed by Board of Revenue, Ajmer, whereby, the revision petition filed fie petitioners has been rejected. 2. The petitioners filed suit for declaration of Khatedari rights and permanent action; along-with the suit an application under Section 212 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 ('the Act') was filed before the Sub Divisional Officer, jayal ('SDO') seeking temporary injunction during pendency of the suit. 3. The SDO granted temporary injunction in favour of the petitioners. 4. The respondent No. 2-defendant filed an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Nagaur ('RAA'), which was allowed by the RAA by its judgment dated 12.3.2010; where after, the petitioners filed a revision petition before the Board of Revenue, Ajmer ('Board1), which came to be dismissed by the impugned judgment. 5. The Board after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that from the documentary evidence it was apparent that the land in question was recorded in the name of late Banshi Lal husband of respondent No. 2 and, therefore, ill judgment passed by the RAA did not require any interference. 6. It was submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioners that the Board committed grave error of law in dismissing the revision petition; the SDO, aft considering the entire material available on record had passed the injunction order, however, the RAA without recording any cogent reasons, reversed the said order and, therefore, the Board ought to have interfered with the judgment pass by the RAA. 7. Learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 vehemently opposed the submission made by learned Counsel for the petitioners; it was submitted that there is no justification for the petitioners to raise any issue, inasmuch as, f land in question was in possession of the respondent since 1968; half of I portion was purchased by Banshi Lal from Nand Lal and rest of the land w; already recorded in his name and, therefore, the petitioners have no right in the land in question. The petition deserves to be dismissed with costs. 8. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties. 9. The petition deserves to be dismissed with costs. 8. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties. 9. A bare look at the judgment passed by the RAA reveals that a finding' fact was recorded by the RAA regarding the status of record and possession favour of respondent No. 2 and it was held that there was no prima facie easel favour of the petitioners and, consequently, there was no question of balance convenience in their favour and irreparable injury being caused to them. 10. The crucial document in the present case is the registered sale deed filed as Annexure-R/2/2 executed by Nand Lal predecessor of the petitioners in favour of Banshi Lal in the year 1968, wherein, he has indicated that he was possession of half portion of the land and by the said document was transferring the said land, which necessarily means that the fact about other half port) which was in possession of Banshi Lal was never in dispute. 11. In view thereof, it cannot be said that the finding recorded by the Bn required any interference by the Board and the Board was justified in dismissing the revision petition filed by the petitioners. 12. Consequently, there is no substance in the writ petition and the same is therefore, dismissed. The stay petition is also dismissed. The suit has been filed in the year 2008, it is expected of the SDO to decide the suit as expeditiously as possible. No order as to costs.Petition dismissed. *******