JUDGMENT arun Bhansali, J. - This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the Resolution dated 1.1.2021 (annex.P/2) passed by the Gram Panchayat, aratwav, order dated 7.1.2021 (annex.P/4) passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Guda Malani, order dated 24.3.2021 (annex.P/9) passed by the Revenue appellate authority and order dated 30.3.2022 (annex.P/11) passed by the Board of Revenue and seeking a direction to the respondents not to raise any construction regarding the Panchayat Bhawan and a direction to the respondents to allot land in Khasra No.500 near Government Upper Primary School. 2. The respondent - Gram Panchayat in its Special Meeting dated 1.1.2021 passed the Resolution for allotment of land in Khasra No.395 admeasuring 2.05 bigha for construction of Gram Panchayat Bhawan. Whereafter, an application was made to the Tehsildar, Tehsil Guda Malani and the SDO by order dated 7.1.2021, allotted the land in question to the Gram panchayat. 3. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners who were apparently interested in construction of the Gram Panchayat Bhawan in Khasra No.500, filed appeal before the Revenue appellate authority under Section 75 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue act, 1956. The appeal was filed seeking to emphasize that the land situated in Khasra No.500 was far more suitable for the Panchayat Bhawan than the land which has been allotted. 4. The Revenue appellate authority by its order dated 24.3.2021 did not find any illegality in the order impugned before him and consequently, rejected the appeal. 5. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners approached the Board of the Revenue under Section 76 of the Land Revenue act again reiterating the issue of land in Khasra NO.500 being more appropriate. 6. The Board of Revenue by its order dated 30.3.2022, did not find any reason to interfere with the concurrent orders passed by the SDO and the Revenue appellate authority and consequently, dismissed the second appeal. 7. 6. The Board of Revenue by its order dated 30.3.2022, did not find any reason to interfere with the concurrent orders passed by the SDO and the Revenue appellate authority and consequently, dismissed the second appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners made submissions that the action of the respondents in passing the Resolution (annex.2) is per se illegal, inasmuch as, the Special Meeting of the Gram Panchayat could only be called by following procedure under Section 45(3) of the Panchayati Raj act, 1994, which provisions have been violated and as the initiation of the meeting itself is per se illegal, the Resolution passed therein, is also non-est and consequently the orders passed by the SDO, allotting the land and the dismissal of appeals by the Revenue appellate authority and the Board of Revenue, also deserve to be set aside. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents made submissions that the petitioners have filed the present writ petition under article 227 of the Constitution of India and cannot be permitted to raise absolutely new issues, which issues were never raised either before the Revenue appellate authority or the Board of Revenue. 9. Submissions have been made that the entire attempt on part of the petitioners all along has been to claim that the land in Khasra No.500 was more suitable than the allotted land and no other aspect was emphasized, which submissions have been declined by the Revenue appellate authority and the Board of Revenue and as such, no case for interference is made out. 10. It is denied that the provisions of Section 45(3) of the act have been violated in any manner. 11. Submissions have also been made that this Court has consistently laid down that as to at what place the Panchayat Bhawan etc. should come up, cannot be made subject-matter of interference by the Court and on that count also, the petition deserves dismissal. 12. Reliance has been placed on Samast Gramvasi, Gram Panchayat, Deluon Ka Tala v. Rana Ram & Ors.: D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13457/2021, decided on 2.2.2022, Villagers of Village Sundo Ka Bas, Tehsil and Panchayat Samiti Kishangarh Kenwal v. State of Rajasthan: 2022(1) DNJ (Raj.) 311, Moti Ram v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9684/2020, decided on 10.2.2022 and Smt. Shanti v. Jodhpur Development authority, Jodhpur & Ors.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4241/2022, decided on 1.4.2022. 13. 13. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 14. a perusal of the orders passed by the Revenue appellate authority and the Board of Revenue, which are subject-matter of challenge in the present writ petition reveal that the petitioners in the appeals only and only emphasized the fact about the land situated in Khasra No.500 being more appropriate than the allotted land. at no stage, objection was raised pertaining to the purported illegality of the meeting resulting in passing of the resolution dated 1.1.2021. 15. The jurisdiction under article 227 of the Constitution of India having been invoked in the present writ petition for issuance of writ of Certiorari, the petitioners possibly cannot raise issues, which have not been raised before the Courts / Tribunals below that also for the first time and requiring investigation into the factual aspects pertaining to the validity of meeting held by the respondents. 16. It is besides the fact that the respondents by producing material in response, have sought to defend the holding of the meeting and have also asserted that the construction of the Panchayat Bhawan is already at an advanced stage. Various judgments cited by learned counsel for the respondents, have consistently held that, insofar as, the consturction of the Panchayat Bhawan etc. is concerned, the jurisdiction of the Court cannot be invoked for the purpose of adjudicating the appropriate location for its construction etc. and, therefore, the interference by the Court under article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is not warranted. 17. In view of the above discussion, no case for interference is made out in the present writ petition. The same is, therefore, dismissed.