ORDER : Arun Bhansali, J. This writ petition is directed against the judgment dated 22.01.1996 and order dated 21.06.1999 passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer ('the Board'), whereby the appeal filed by the respondent-State has been accepted and the review petition filed by the petitioner-plaintiff has been dismissed, respectively. The petitioner filed a suit for declaration of khatedari rights and for permanent injunction on 15.09.1986, which was registered as suit No.415/1986 before the Assistant Collector, Sujangarh. 2. The suit was resisted by the State and the Assistant Collector by his judgment dated 30.01.1990 dismissed the suit filed by the petitioner. 3. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner ('the RAA'). The RAA also noted that 10 other similar suits were filed, which were also dismissed and the matters have also been remanded back to the Assistant Collector. Thereafter, the RAA by its judgment dated 17.10.1990 remanded back the matter to the Assistant Collector and also observed that the appellant was entitled to conferment of khatedari rights under Section 19(1)(AA) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 ('the Act'). 4. Feeling aggrieved by the remand order, the State filed second appeal before the Board. The Board by its judgment dated 22.01.1996 came to the conclusion that on the one hand the RAA has remanded back the matter and simultaneously it has ordered for giving benefit of Section 19(1)(AA) of the Act, which was mutually contradictory and, consequently, set aside the order passed by the RAA while accepting the appeal filed by the respondent-State. 5. A review petition was filed by the petitioner, inter alia, with the averments that order dated 22.01.1996 was passed ex-parte. It was submitted that no one appeared on behalf of the petitioner on account of the fact that the counsel representing the petitioner became member of the Board and on account of communication gap, no other counsel could be engaged. Submissions were made regarding providing opportunity to make submissions and also for reviewing the order on merits. 6. The Board by its order dated 21.06.1999 dismissed the review petition by holding that there was no error apparent on face of record. 7. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that as many as 11 suits of similar nature were filed, which were decided and dismissed by the Assistant Collector. 6. The Board by its order dated 21.06.1999 dismissed the review petition by holding that there was no error apparent on face of record. 7. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that as many as 11 suits of similar nature were filed, which were decided and dismissed by the Assistant Collector. While 10 matters came up before the RAA and were decided by order dated 26.03.1990, following the said order, the case of the petitioner was decided by the RAA on 17.10.1990. Against the order passed earlier, the State approached the Board and the Board by its judgment dated 03.01.1994 partly allowed the appeal and modifying the order passed by the RAA upheld the order of remand. 8. It is submitted that the case of the petitioner was similarly situated to that of other 10 persons, whose case was decided by the Board on 03.01.1994, however, as the petitioner was not represented, when the matter came up for hearing before the Board on 22.01.1996, the said aspect could not be pointed out. It is further submitted that presently the matters were still pending before the Assistant Collector after the same were remanded back by the Board on 03.01.1994 and, therefore, the petitioner may be granted the same relief as was granted by the Board in the case of other 10 similarly situated persons. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent-State submitted that once the Board has decided the matter on merits, the same does not call for any interference, however, it is not disputed that the order, which was passed the case of 10 persons, form the basis for passing the remand order by the RAA. 10. I have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 11. From what has been noticed hereinbefore, it is apparent that 11 suits were filed seeking declaration of khatedari rights by different plaintiffs. All the suits were dismissed by the Assistant Collector; where after on appeal, the RAA by its order dated 26.03.1990 allowed 10 appeals and remanded back the matters to the Assistant Collector and as noticed hereinbefore observed that the plaintiffs were entitled to conferment of khatedari rights under Section 19(1)(AA) of the Act. 12. All the suits were dismissed by the Assistant Collector; where after on appeal, the RAA by its order dated 26.03.1990 allowed 10 appeals and remanded back the matters to the Assistant Collector and as noticed hereinbefore observed that the plaintiffs were entitled to conferment of khatedari rights under Section 19(1)(AA) of the Act. 12. The said order dated 26.03.1990 was followed by the RAA in the case of the petitioner also while passing the order dated 17.10.1990 ordering for remand. The State filed appeals against all the 11 orders of the RAA before the Board while 9 appeals were decided by the order dated 03.01.1994, wherein the following order was passed by the Board:- "7-On being pointed out by this Court that the workings of para 7 clearly indicate that the Assistant Collector's order has been set aside only partially and the case has been remanded, the counsel for the respondents agreed with the observations of this Court. It is apparent from the wordings of the order of the Revenue Appellate Authority that he seriously erred in remanding the case of the Trial Court and simultaneously ordering to pass the final decree under Section 19(1)(AA) of Rajasthan Tenancy Act. The Revenue Appellate Authority has also not discussed as to how such khatedari could have accrued only on the basis of the Commissioner's report and Government Advocate's written arguments. Hence these appeals are partially accepted and the impugned order dated 26.3.1990 of the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner is modified to the extent that these cases remanded by the Revenue Appellate Authority shall be heard afresh by the trial court and after taking into consideration the Commissioner's report and after hearing both the parties the trial court shall decide the case as per law. Parties shall appear before the Assistant Collector, Sujangarh on 15/2/1994. Pronounced in the open Court." 13. Parties shall appear before the Assistant Collector, Sujangarh on 15/2/1994. Pronounced in the open Court." 13. The appeal filed against the order dated 17.10.1990 passed in the case of the petitioner remained pending and, consequently came to be decided by judgment dated 22.01.1996, wherein the counsel appearing for the respondent-State apparently did not point out the passing of the order dated 03.01.1994 in similar nature matters though the same counsel had appeared in both the matters and as no one appeared on behalf of the petitioner for the reasons as noticed hereinbefore, an order different from the order dated 03.01.1994 came to be passed, whereby the entire appeal of the State was allowed and the order passed by the RAA was set aside, resulting in the dismissal of the petitioner's suit. The review petition filed by the petitioner was also rejected by noticing that there was no error apparent on face of record though the filing of the review petition itself apparently was misconceived, inasmuch as, ex-parte order was passed. 14. In the above noticed facts and circumstances of the case where 11 similar nature suits were filed by the plaintiffs and met with the same fate before the Assistant Collector, Sujangarh and the RAA, they are entitled to be treated similarly by the Appellate Authority i.e. the Board of Revenue as well, wherein qua the 10 petitioners, the matters have been remanded back by modifying the order passed by the RAA, the case of the petitioner has been dismissed. 15. In view of the fact that a binding similar nature order dated 03.01.1994 was not cited by the counsel for the State before the Board while passing the order dated 22.01.1996 though the facts and the matter involved were identical, the judgment dated 22.01.1996 & order dated 21.06.1999 passed by the Board, cannot be sustained. 16. In view of the above, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. 16. In view of the above, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. The judgment dated 22.01.1996 (Annex.-3) and order dated 21.06.1999 (Annex.-4) are set aside and instead of the order dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner, the order as passing by the Board in its order dated 03.01.1994 as quoted hereinbefore shall stand substituted and it is ordered that the order dated 17.10.1990 of the RAA would be modified to the extent that the Assistant Collector shall hear afresh taking into consideration the Commissioner's report and after hearing both the parties, decide the case as per law. 17. It is expected that the present matter shall also be heard along with the other pending matter as stated by counsel for the petitioner.