JUDGMENT Sandeep Mehta, J. - By way of this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the State of Rajasthan through Tehsildar Raipur, District Pali has approached this Court for assailing the judgment dated 30.7.2013 passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer in Ceiling Appeal No.3187/2002 whereby, the appeal preferred by the respondents against the order dated 29.5.2002 passed by the Additional Collector, Pali was allowed and the said order was quashed and set aside. 2. I have heard and considered the arguments advanced by Shri O.P.Boob, learned Govt. Counsel and have gone through the impugned judgment. 3. Firstly, this Court is of the opinion that the writ petition suffers from gross laches of nearly 41/2 years for which, no explanation has been offered in this writ petition. That apart, even on merits, learned Govt. Counsel was unable to point out any illegality, irregularity or error apparent on the face of record in the impugned judgment warranting interference therein in the exercise of the supervisory writ jurisdiction of this Court. The land in question was owned by late Shri Amarsingh, who expired in the year 1958 by which time, the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 had come into force, as per which, all first class legal heirs of Shri Amarsingh were entitled to an equal share in the property in question. The land in question was owned by late Shri Amarsingh, who expired in the year 1958 by which time, the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 had come into force, as per which, all first class legal heirs of Shri Amarsingh were entitled to an equal share in the property in question. The Board of Revenue, whilst deciding this issue, held as below:- ^^15- vejflag ,oa ekuflag }kjk fnukad 25-2-1958 ds ckn fd;s x;s gLrkUrj.kksa dks vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 30Mh ,oa 30MhMh ds vUrxZr ln~Hkkoh lkfcr djkus gsrq vihykFkhZx.k dh vksj ls v/khuLFk U;k;ky; esa dksbZ lk{; ÁLrqr ugha dh xbZ gSA ftlls v/khuLFk U;k;ky; us mu gLrkUrj.kksa dks ekU;rk ugha nsus esa dksbZ =qfV ugha dh gS] bl lhek rd blls ge lger gSaA 16- fo}ku vfHkHkk"kd vihykFkhZ us fjVuZ ds vuqlkj vejflag ds lHkh okfjlku dks ckfyx gksuk crk;k gSA bldk [k.Mu fo}ku jktdh; vfHkHkk"kd }kjk ugha fd;k x;k gSA iSr`d lEifr esa iq= vo;Ld gS rks Hkh tUe ls mldk gd o fgLlk curk gSA iSr`d Hkwfe esa firk ij /kkfjr Hkwfe dh vf/kdre tksr lhek vf/kjksi.k vf/kfu;e ds vUrxZr x.kuk djrs le; iq= dh Hkwfe dks vyx dj fn;k tkuk pkfg;sA blds lkFk gh ,slh iSr`d lEifr ds ekeyksa esa ;g ns[kk tkuk vko';d gS fd vejflag ds okfjl vlslh ij vkfJr gS ;k ughaA pwafd fookfnr Hkwfe iSr`d lEifr gSa ,oa vejflag dh e`R;q ds ckn mudh iRuh esa dk'rdkjh vf/kdkj fufgr gksus ls mudk fgLlk iq=ksa ds cjkcj curk gS ftlls mudk 1@6 fgLlk fookfnr Hkwfe esa gSA vejflag ds 5 iq= Hkh cjkcj dk fgLlk j[krs gSA bl Ádkj dqy 5 okfjl iq= dksiklZuj gSa ,oa ÁR;sd dk fookfnr Hkwfe esa 1@5 fgLlk curk gSA ÁR;sd dksiklZuj dks mlds fgLls esa ÁkIr Hkwfe ls mldk thou;kiu gks ldrk gSA pkgs iq= vo;Ld gh gksA ,slh fLFkfr esa mUgsa vlslh ij vkfJr ugha ekuk tk ldrkA vejflag dh e`R;q ds ckn mudh csok dks dk'rdkjh vf/kfu;e ds Áko/kkuksa ds vuqlkj ÁkIr fgLls ls mudk thou;kiu gks ldrk gSA c;kuksa esa Hkh ekrk dks vlslh ekuflag ls vyx jguk crk;k x;k gSA blds foijhr dksbZ lk{; jkT; i{k dh vksj ls ÁLrqr ugha dh xbZ gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa ekrk dks iq= ij vkfJr ugha ekuk tk ldrkA ftlls vlslh ekuflag ds HkkbZ;ksa ,o ekrk dk fgLlk ekuflag }kjk /kkfjr Hkwfe esa ugha tksM+k tk ldrkA tSlk fd mijksDr U;kf;d n`"VkUrksa esa Hkh Áfrikfnr fd;k x;k gSA 17- fu/kkZfjr frfFk 1-4-1966 dks vlslh ekuflag ds ikl 577 ch?kk Hkwfe Fkh ftlesa mDrkuqlkj mudh ekrk ,oa ikapksa HkkbZ;ksa dks cjkcj dk fgLlk gksus ls ekrk dk 1@6 fgLlk i`Fkd djus ds mijkUr vlslh ekuflag 1@5 fgLls dh Hkwfe ÁkIr djrs gSa] tks 96 ch?kk ds yxHkx curh gSaA bl Ádkj ekuflag dks ÁkIr fgLlk Hkwfe lhfyax lhek ls de jgrh gS ftlls ge ;g vihy Lohdkj djuk U;k;ksfpr le>rs gSA** 4. The conclusions drawn hereinabove by the Board of Revenue, the veracity whereof could not be seriously questioned by the learned Govt. Council, clearly indicate that the total area of the land was not beyond the permissible ceiling limit. The basic thrust of arguments advanced by Shri Boob was that the mutation of the land pursuant to death of Shri Amarsingh entered in the name of Mansingh alone and thus, the land should have been presumed to be of a single holding. However, manifestly, mutation is just a fiscal entry and does not give rise to any substantive proprietory rights. 5. In this background, the Board of Revenue was perfectly justified in reversing the Collector's order dated 29.5.2002 wherein, a finding was recorded that Mansingh was the sole owner of the land in question. 6. Finding no illegality, irregularity or perversity in the impugned order dated 30.7.2013 and so also considering the fact that the writ petition is grossly delayed, the same is dismissed as such. 7. Stay application is also dismissed.