ORDER : 1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 24.02.2009 passed by the Board of Revenue wherein the Board of Revenue has set aside the order dated 23.12.2003 passed by the Settlement Officer-Revenue Appellate Authority wherein the said Authority had dismissed the appeal filed by the respondents against judgment and decree dated 14.12.1976 passed by the SDO, Dausa. 2. The petitioner has also prayed for maintaining the order dated 14.12.1976 passed by the SDO, Dausa and order dated 23.12.2003 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Jaipur. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner had filed a suit No.187/75 for declaration with regard to co-tenancy. The said suit was decreed vide order dated 14.12.1976 by the SDO, Dausa. The suit was filed against Narpat Singh, Prahlad Singh, Govind Singh, Puran Singh, Manohar Singh and Magan Kanwar wife of Rawat Singh. 3. The order passed by the SDO, Dausa was challenged by way of filing appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority by Manohar Singh. The appeal so filed was also accompanied with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The Revenue Appellate Authority vide its order dated 23.12.2003, found that the appeal was time barred and as such the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was not found to be containing just and sufficient reasons for condoning the delay and as such the appeal was not entertained on merits and only on the ground of limitation, the said appeal was dismissed. 4. The respondent-Manohar Singh felt aggrieved against the order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority and he filed an appeal under Section 224 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue vide impugned order dated 24.02.2009 has set aside the order of the Revenue Appellate Authority dated 23.12.2003 and has further set aside the order passed by the SDO, Dausa dated 14.12.1976. The Board of Revenue has further remanded the matter back to the SDO, Dausa to provide opportunity to the parties and after considering the pleadings and evidence, etc. fresh decision was required to be passed. The Board of Revenue has further remanded the matter back to the SDO, Dausa to provide opportunity to the parties and after considering the pleadings and evidence, etc. fresh decision was required to be passed. The Board of Revenue has passed the following order:- ^^mijksDr foospu] fo'ys"k.k ,oa fof/kd fLFkfr dks /;ku esa j[krs gq;s ;g vihy Lohdkj dh tkdj fo}ku Hkw&ÁcU/k vf/kdkjh ,oa insu jktLo vihy vf/kdkjh t;iqj }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; ,oa fMØh fnukad 23-12-2003 ,oa fopkj.k U;k;ky; mi[k.M vf/kdkjh nkSlk }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; ,oa fMØh fnukad 14-12-1976 dks fujLr fd;k tkrk gS ,oa Ádj.k mi[k.M vf/kdkjh nkSlk dks bl funsZ'k ds lkFk ÁfrÁsf"kr fd;k tkrk gS fd og mHk; i{kdkju dks viuk i{k ÁLrqr djus dk leqfpr volj Ánku dj] nkok ,oa tckc nkok ds vk/kkj ij rudh;kr dk;e dj mHk; i{kdkjku dh vksj ls ÁLrqr gksus okth nLrkosth ,oa ekSf[kd lk{; dk foospu dj rudhokj fu.kZ; ikfjr djsaA mHk; i{kdkjku dks fopkj.k U;k;ky; esa fnukad 8-4-2009 dks mifLFkr jgus ds fy;s ikcan fd;k tkrk gSA Ádj.k dkQh iqjkuk gks pqdk gS blfy;s fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds ihBklhu vf/kdkjh dks ;g funsZ'k fn;s tkrs gS fd og fnu&Áfrfnu dh rkjh[k is'kh fu;r dj Ádj.k dk vf/kdre N% ekg ds vUnj fu;ekuqlkj fuLrkj.k dj nsosaA** 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Board of Revenue has committed illegality in setting aside the judgment and decree dated 14.12.1976. Learned counsel submitted that the Board of Revenue has gone into the merits of the matter and after giving findings with regard to validity of the judgment and decree dated 14.12.1976, the entire case has been discussed on merits and as such the Board of Revenue could not have set aside the judgment and decree dated 14.12.1976. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that once the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was not entertained by the Revenue Appellate Authority and no finding was given on merits of the matter while dismissing the appeal, the Board of Revenue could only consider the reasons assigned for not treating the appeal within time. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that once the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was not entertained by the Revenue Appellate Authority and no finding was given on merits of the matter while dismissing the appeal, the Board of Revenue could only consider the reasons assigned for not treating the appeal within time. 6. Learned counsel submitted that the Board of Revenue has given finding in para 9 of the judgment on merits of the matter that alleged judgment and decree was passed only on the basis of family settlement dated 12.07.1962 and the same could not held to be valid in eyes of law, as the land holder-Tehsildar had not put his signature either as a witness or as a land holder. 7. Learned counsel submitted that the Board of Revenue, Jaipur has further recorded a finding that the appellant- Manohar Singh was a minor and even if admission in the written statement was made on his behalf and the same was filed by Lawyer, the appellant-Manohar Singh was not bound by such admission and as such the family settlement was not found to be valid in the eyes of law. 8. Learned counsel submitted that the Board of Revenue, if at all was to consider the merits of the matter, the same discretion was with the Appellate Court i.e. Revenue Appellate Authority and not with the Board of Revenue. 9. Learned counsel submitted that the Appellate Court is first required to consider the point of limitation and if it finds that limitation is to be condoned, the merits of the matter can always be looked into. 10. Learned counsel submitted that in the instant case that the Appellate Court has not given any finding in respect of the merits of the matter and as such the Board of Revenue should not have given the findings on merits of the matter and the judgment and decree passed by the SDO Court could not have been set aside. 11. Per-contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Ms. Anita Agrawal submitted that the Board of Revenue has not committed any illegality in passing the order. Learned counsel submitted that the Board of Revenue has only remanded the matter back to the trial Court-SDO Court and the said Court after hearing both the parties and considering the evidence, has to pass fresh order. 12. Anita Agrawal submitted that the Board of Revenue has not committed any illegality in passing the order. Learned counsel submitted that the Board of Revenue has only remanded the matter back to the trial Court-SDO Court and the said Court after hearing both the parties and considering the evidence, has to pass fresh order. 12. Learned counsel submitted that no prejudice is caused to the petitioner if the order of Board of Revenue is carried out as time bound direction is given to decide the suit within six months. 13. Learned counsel submitted that decree which was passed by the SDO Court is a nullity as the respondent-Manohar Singh was minor at the time of filing of the suit and further even he was not born at the time of alleged family settlement which was entered in the year 1972. 14. Learned counsel argued that the Board of Revenue has amble power to pass appropriate order and it was not necessary that the matter should have been sent to the Revenue Appellate Authority as the Revenue Appellate Authority had already given its finding dismissing the appeal filed by the respondent. 15. Learned counsel submitted that sending matter back to the same authority i.e. Revenue Appellate Authority was of no significance in the facts of the present case, as the proper explanation given for approaching the appellate court and same was not entertained only on the hypothetical basis and the application filed by the respondent under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was rejected by the Appellate Court. 16. Learned counsel submitted that this Court exercising writ power may not substitute its views as far as facts are concerned and the same have been duly appreciated by the Board of Revenue. 17. I have heard both the parties. 18. This Court finds that the Revenue Appellate Authority while passing the order dated 23.12.2003, had dismissed the appeal filed by the respondent only on the ground of limitation. The appellate Court had not recorded any finding either approving or disapproving the findings of the SDO Court. This Court finds that the Board of Revenue was primarily concerned with the issue of limitation in filing the appeal by the respondents before Revenue Appellate Authority. 19. The Board of Revenue was to consider whether the appeal filed by the respondents was to be treated as time barred or not. This Court finds that the Board of Revenue was primarily concerned with the issue of limitation in filing the appeal by the respondents before Revenue Appellate Authority. 19. The Board of Revenue was to consider whether the appeal filed by the respondents was to be treated as time barred or not. The Board of Revenue was within its domain to record findings with regard to the explanation of delay which was furnished by the respondents in the appeal. 20. This Court finds that the Board of Revenue while passing the impugned order has recorded its finding that the order and judgment passed by the SDO, Dausa was not sustainable in the eyes of law. The Board of Revenue has given different reasoning for setting aside the order passed by the SDO Court. 21. This Court finds that the Board of Revenue has in fact made observations in respect of the merits of the matter and further it has also given finding with respect to the alleged family settlement, said to be entered between the members of Family on 12.07.1962. 22. This Court finds that the order of setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the SDO, Dausa, was not warranted in the present facts of the case and at the most the Board of Revenue could have directed the appellate authority to reconsider the issue of limitation by affording opportunity to the parties concerned or could have treated the appeal of respondents filed within time and then to remand the matter to appellate Court to decide appeal on merits. 23. This Court finds substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that before considering the merits of the matter, the appellate authority has to first decide the issue of limitation and only if appeal is treated within time limit, as such the merits of the matter could be looked into by the Appellate Court. The observations made by the Board of Revenue are definitely going to affect the case of the parties and as such the observations of the Board of Revenue are required to be ignored. 24. The present writ petition is required to be decided by modifying the order passed by the Board of Revenue dated 24.02.2003. The observations made by the Board of Revenue are definitely going to affect the case of the parties and as such the observations of the Board of Revenue are required to be ignored. 24. The present writ petition is required to be decided by modifying the order passed by the Board of Revenue dated 24.02.2003. The directions of the Board of Revenue, to decide the suit afresh by setting aside the orders dated 14.12.1976 and 23.12.2003, are set aside and direction is given to the Revenue Appellate Authority to decide the appeal of the respondent. The Revenue Appellate Authority will consider the matter afresh after taking into account the explanation furnished by the respondent for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. The observations which have been made by the Board of Revenue will not be taken into account in respect of the merits of the matter. 25. The present writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the Revenue Appellate Authority, Jaipur to decide the application filed by the respondent with regard to the condonation of delay within a period of four weeks after receipt of copy of this order.