JUDGMENT : M.N. Bhandari, J. 1. By this writ petition, a challenge is made to the order dated 18th June, 1998 passed by the Board of Revenue. 2. Learned counsel submits that petitioner was in possession of land, for which, proceedings under Section 91 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short the Act of 1955) were initiated from time to time. Petitioner's father made an application for regularisation of land in pursuance of the Circular of the Government. The Tehsildar regularised the land in favour of petitioner's father. The petitioner also made an application for regularisation of land, which was accepted by Tehsildar. The order of regularisation of land was interfered by the District Collector on the ground that the land measuring 1000 square yard has already been regularised in favour of petitioner's father thus he was not entitled for regularisation of land. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, which was allowed, however, order of Revenue Appellate Authority was reversed by the Board of Revenue. It is alleged to be in ignorance of the fact that petitioner was in possession of land separately than his father. In view of above, both were entitled to seek regularisation of land based on their possession. The prayer is to set aside the impugned order passed by the Board of Revenue. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents have contested the writ petition. It is submitted that petitioner's father and petitioner were jointly in litigation. In fact, the proceeding was initiated against them and was challenged jointly as is coming out from the various orders placed on record. The petitioner has made a reference of document at Schedule C to show his possession in Khasra No.1057 and his father's possession in Khasra No.1056. If it is also taken to be correct then regularisation of land has been made in Khasra No.1057 and in view of above, the petitioner was not further entitled to seek regularisation of land as he was in possession of land in that Khasra only. A reference of joint appeal preferred before the Revenue Appellate Authority has also been given to show that petitioner's father and petitioner were throughout contesting the case jointly, however, after getting regularisation of land measuring 1000 square yard, the petitioner started pursuing the case for regularisation of additional land and Tehsildar had accepted the application. A reference of joint appeal preferred before the Revenue Appellate Authority has also been given to show that petitioner's father and petitioner were throughout contesting the case jointly, however, after getting regularisation of land measuring 1000 square yard, the petitioner started pursuing the case for regularisation of additional land and Tehsildar had accepted the application. The District Collected noticed the aforesaid and regularisation of land in favour of the petitioner was cancelled. The Board of Revenue has maintained the order passed by the SDO and, thereby, reversed the order of the Revenue Appellate Authority. Looking to the aforesaid, no interference in the impugned order may be caused. 4. I have considered rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made a reference of Schedule C appended to the writ petition. It is to show that father and son were having possession of different land. 6. So far as the petitioner is concerned, he alleged to be in possession of Khasra No.1057, whereas, his father was in possession of Khasra No.1056. If the fact aforesaid is also taken into consideration then regularisation of land was in Khasra No.1057 and, in that case, further regularisation of land in the same Khasra could not have been made by Tehsildar. The Tehsildar passed an order in ignorance of the fact that father and son were throughout litigating jointly and even notices under Section 91 of the Act of 1955 were also contested by them jointly. The petitioner started making claim for regularisation once they could get regularisation of the land measuring 1000 square yard in the name of his father. Separate claim by the petitioner was not maintainable thus the District Collector had passed the order cancelling the regularsiation of land in the hands of the Tehsildar. The Board of Revenue has maintained the order aforesaid. If the total possession of land by son and father is also taken into consideration in two different Khasras i.e. Khasra Nos.1056 and 1057, it comes to 1000 square yard as per the details given in Schedule C. The regularisation of land has already been made equivalent to aforesaid thus petitioner was not further entitled to seek regularisation of land in addition to the aforesaid. If the petitioner's father was entitled for regularisation of land based on possession then could not have been beyond 484 square yard referred in Schedule C but regularisation of land is of 1000 square yard thus Board of Revenue has not committed any illegality in reversing the order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority while maintaining the order of District Collector. 7. Taking into consideration the aforesaid and while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, I do not find any reason to cause interference in the finding recorded by the Board of Revenue. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to pursue his cause if any Circular is issued, which makes him entitle for any claim.