ORDER 1. In wake of second surge in the COVID-19 cases, abundant caution is being maintained, while hearing the matters in Court, for the safety of all concerned. 2. This writ petition has been preferred claiming the following reliefs: " i. The impugned order dated 20.9.19 (Ann.9) passed by the learned Board of Revenue, Ajmer and orders of SDO Gudamalani, Barmer and Orders of Revenue Appellate Authority (Barmer-Jaisalmer) HQ Jodhpur dated 26.11.07 (Ann. 7) and 10.4.08 (Ann. 8) may kindly be quashed and set aside and other consequential orders, if any, passed by courts below may kindly be quashed and set aside. ii. By appropriate writ, order or directions, petitioners may not be dispossessed till the disposal of the writ petition. 3. As the pleaded facts would reveal, the parties are closely related to each other, being brothers and other family members, and the bone of contention is the lands of Khasra No.222 Rakba 157-07 Bigha and Khasra No.219 Rakba 0.04 Bigha Gair Mumkin Barani Doyam land situated at village Gudamalani, District Barmer. The respondents had filed a revenue suit No. 10/81 (72/82) for claiming l/5th land of Khasra No.222 and 219, but all the brothers could not join in, and therefore, the same was dismissed for non-prosecution. Thereafter, another revenue suit No.48/02 was filed for claiming the same rights of partition, which was allowed by the Assistant Collector (SDO), Gudamalani, District Barmer, vide order dated 26.11.2007, which declared the land to be a joint family land and also liable for equitable distribution. The aforementioned order dated 26.11.2007 was challenged before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Barmer-Jaisalmer HQ Jodhpur by way of preferring appeal No.223/RT Act/41/2207/Barmer, which was dismissed vide order dated 10.04.2008. The appeal against the same was preferred before the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan Ajmer, which was also dismissed vide order dated 20.09.2019. Thus, there are three consecutive orders in favour of the respondents. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is a delay in filing the suit, and thus, the three consecutive orders, passed for distribution of the ancestral property amongst the brothers, were faulty. Thus, the sole point, on which learned counsel the petitioner is harping, is the delay in filing the suit. 5. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is a delay in filing the suit, and thus, the three consecutive orders, passed for distribution of the ancestral property amongst the brothers, were faulty. Thus, the sole point, on which learned counsel the petitioner is harping, is the delay in filing the suit. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that there are three consecutive orders, wherein the mind has been applied by the quasi-judicial and judicial authorities, and thus, no case for interference is made out. Learned counsel further submits that as far as the delay in filing the suit is concerned, an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was filed at the first instance by the petitioner, but the same was dismissed by a reasoned order, and was thereafter, never challenged. Learned counsel also submits that the part of delay has attained finality, after rejection of the application preferred under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and after the issues framed were decided in favour of the respondents. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as examining the record of the case, this Court does not find any reason why the aforesaid three consecutive orders, impugned herein, ought to be interfered with, particularly when the delay part of it was already dealt with repeatedly and pointedly, while deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, preferred by the petitioner, at the threshold itself. 7. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of.