JUDGMENT : K.S. JHAVERI, J. 1. Delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The application under section 5 of the Limitation Act stands allowed. 2. By way of this appeal, the appellant has assailed the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge whereby learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition and confirmed the order of Board of Revenue. 3. Counsel for the appellant contended that in view of decree which reads as under:- ^^mDr fu.kZ; rudh;kr okn oknh vkaf'kd :i ls Lohdkj fd;k tkrk gSA eqrkfcd vkaf'kd uD'kk V~sl ekStk ijljkeiqjk lu~ 1936&37 loar 1993 ds vuqlkj [k0ua0 379 jdck 77 ch?kk 09 fc'ok esa MksVsM ykbZu ls jkLrk fpfUgr fd;k gqvk gSA lkfcd [k0ua0 379 ds ckn HkwÁca/k dk;Zokgh esa iqjkus [k0u0 379 ds ckn cus gky [k0 ufookn xzLr jkLrs dks fpfUgr jkLrs dks fpfUgr ugh fd;k x;k gSA vkaf'kd uD'kk V~sl ns[kus ls MksVsM ykbZu ls jkLrs dk vady Li"V gksrk gS vr% ewy iqjkus [k0u0 379 ls orZeku cus x;s [kljk uEcjku esa mDr MksVsM ykbZu dk vadu fd;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr gksus ds dkj.k [k0u0 379 ds vadu MksVsM ykbZu dk orZeku esa cus u;s [kljk uEcjku esa mlh LFkku ij vadu fd;s tkus ds vkns'k fn;k tkrs gS rglhynkj uoyx<+ dks vknsf'kr fd;k tkrk gS fd lkfcd vkaf'kd uD'kk V~sl o u;s uD'kk V~sl dh iw.kZ tkap dh tkdj orZeku uD'ks esa jkLrk dk vadu fd;k tkosA rnuqlkj ipkZ fM+Øh tkjh gksA jkLrk can gksus ij oknhx.k l{ke U;k;ky; esa pkjktksgh djsA Áfroknhx.k dks bl okn esa LFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk ls ikcUn ugha fd;k tk ldrk gSA i=koyh Qsly lqekj gksdj uEcj ls de gks rFkk ckn rdehy dk;Zokgh tkIrk nkf[ky nQrj gksA fu.kZ; vkt fnuakd 10-10-2012 dks [kqys U;k;ky; esa lquk;k x;kA** 3.1. The same was satisfied on 15.10.2013 by passing the following order:- ^^odhy vkosnd mifLFkr fu.kZ; fnuakd 10-10-2012 ds vuqlkj xzke ijljkeiqjk ds uD'kk V~sl la lu~ 1993 ds [kr0 379 jdck 77 ch?kk 9 chlok dk jkLrk MksVsM ykbZu fd;k gSA [k0u0 379 ds ckn Hkw Áca/k dk;Zokgh iqjkus [k0u0 ds gky [k0u0 esa fpfUgr ugha fd;k gSA ewy iqjkuk [k0u0 379 ls u;s esa MksVsM ykbZu ls vafdr fd;s tkus ds vkns'k o fMØh tkjh dh xbZA ftldh ikyuk btjk; es iVokjh gYdk }kjk uD'ks esa MksV ykbZu ls jkLrk yky L;kgh ls n'kkZ;k x;k gSA mlesa [ka0u0 639] 640] 642 dh mrjh iwohZ dh lhek ls tks jkLrk gSA vdu ugha fd;k gSA vdu fd;k tkosaA blh ds eqrkfcd rglhynkj uoyx<+ mDr fu.kZ; ds vuqlkj Mks<+ ykbZu ls jkLrs dk vadu djs rgjhj tkjh gksA okLrs ikyuk fjiksVZ fnuakd 30-10-2013 dks is'k gksA** 3.2. The Board of Revenue while considering the matter observed as under:- i=koyh ,oa ikfjr fu.kZ; ds voyksdu ls Li"V gksrk gS fd vÁkFkhZ la[;k&1 us mi[k.M vf/kdkjh] uoyx<+ }kjk okn la[;k 73@2010 cuokuh >kcjey cuke egkohj oxSjkg esa ikfjr fu.kZ; ,oa fMØh fnuakd 10-10-2012 dh ikyuk djok;s tkus ckcr~ btjk; ÁkFkZuki= fnuakd 02-07-2013 dks mi[k.M vf/kdkjh] uoyx<+ ds U;k;ky; esa ÁLrqr fd;k x;kA mi[k.M vf/kdkjh }kjk mDr ÁkFkZuki= dks ntZ jftLVj dj ckn lquokbZ fuxjk/khu fu.kZ; ds fu.kZ; ,oa fMØh fnuakd 10-10-2012 ds vuqlkj rglhynkj uoyx<+ dks MksVsM ykbZu ls jkLrs dk vadu djus ds funsZ'k Ánku fd;s x;sA fuxjkuhdrkZ us ;g fuxjkuh fnuakd 06-08-2015 dks ÁLrqr dj ,di{kh; LFkxu ÁkIr fd;kA lkFk gh fuxjkuhdrkZ us ,d okn ,oa vLFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk dk ÁkFkZuki= fnuakd 21-07-2015 dks mi[k.M vf/kdkjh] uoyx<+ ds U;k;ky; esa Hkh ÁLrqr fd;kA vLFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk ds Ádj.k esa ,di{kh; LFkxu vkns'k fnuakd 22-07-2015 dks ÁkIr fd;k] tks mHk;i{k dh lquokbZ ds i'pkr~ fnuakd 08-12-2015 dks fujLr fd;k x;kA bl Ádkj fuxjkuhdrkZ ÁkFkhZ }kjk rF;ksa dks Nqikdj e.My ds le{k fuxjkuh ÁLrqr dh x;hA ÁLrqr Ádj.k esa btjk; dk;Zokgh ewy okn esa ikfjr fu.kZ; ,oa fMØh fnuakd 10-10-2012 ds vuq:i gS rFkk mi[k.M vf/kdkjh ds fuxjk/khu vkns'k fnuakd 15-10-2013 dh ikyuk esa uD'k V~sl esa fd;k x;k la'kks/ku fnuakd 25-08-2015 Hkh mlh vuq:i gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa mi[k.M vf/kdkjh }kjk ikfjr fuxjk/khu vkns'k fof/klEer~ Árhr gksrk gS] ftlesa fuxjkuh ds ek/;e ls fdlh Ádkj dk gLr{ksi fd;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr Árhr ugha gksrk gSA 3.3. He contended that after decree having been satisfied executing court has travelled beyond the decree. The Board of Revenue while considering the matter has considered the fact that the road was existing even prior to the earlier order. In that view of the matter, fresh map will not come in the way of the present appellant, the order could not be found executiable. 3.4. While considering the matter, learned Single Judge observed as under:- "Learned counsel submits that initially when the trace map was prepared and produced before the Executing Court, it was proper but was ordered to be altered vide order dated 15th October, 2013. The trace map with dotted lines is now affecting the petitioner. The public way would be passing from the middle of the land belonging to the petitioner thus order dated 15th October, 2013 was challenged before the Board of Revenue. I have considered the submission made by learned counsel for petitioner and perused the record. The perusal of decree reveals a direction to maintain the public way by dotted lines as was existing earlier. The dotted lines were not shown in the trace map during the settlement proceedings thus direction was sought and given to maintain the public way. The execution petition was filed where a trace map with dotted lines was submitted but finding it to be not in consonance to the direction, a fresh trace map with dotted lines was produced. It has been challenged by the petitioner on the ground that first trace map with dotted lines was proper. The Board of Revenue has rightly declined to cause interference in the order of the Executing Court as the decree was not executed in terms of the order." 4. Taking into consideration, we are in complete agreement with the view taken by the Board of Revenue and learned Single Judge. 5. The appeal stands dismissed. The stay application also stands dismissed.