ORDER : 1. The matter comes up on an interim application No.1/2022 submitted in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1945/2000 for transposition of respondent No.8-Narain Das as petitioner. The other interim application No.1/2022 has been submitted by the respondent in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.560/1996 for recalling the order dated 24.08.2017 passed by this Court by which transposition application submitted by the respondent No.6 as petitioner No.2 was allowed. The last interim application No.2/2022 has been submitted by the applicants who claim themselves to be the purchasers, as they have purchased the disputed property in question from the respondents during pendency of writ petitions. So far as interim application No.1/2022 submitted by the respondents in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.560/1996 and the interim application No.2/2022 is concerned, these two applications have already been decided by the co-ordinate Bench vide order dated 28.08.2024 as follows:- “1. Matters have come up on an application (1/2022) filed by and on behalf of respondents No.5/1/1 to 5/1/4, to recall the order dated 24.08.2017 whereby Mr. Narain Das, who was party as respondent No.6, has been allowed to transpose as petitioner No.2 in the present writ petition. 2. Learned counsel for respondents states that in-fact petitioner No.2 did not prefer any appeal before the Board of Revenue, hence his transposition from respondent No.6 to petitioner No.2 may affect merits of the writ petition. 3. This Court finds that the ground, on which prayer to recall the order dated 24.08.2017 has been made, can be urged by respondents at the time of hearing of the writ petition. In such view, this Court does not find any good reason to recall the order dated24.08.2017. 4. Accordingly, the application (1/2022) is dismissed. 5. An another application (2/2022) has been filed by applicant sunder Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, seeking their impleadment as respondents in the present writ petition. 6. It has been stated inter alia in the application that applicants purchased land in question from legal representatives of deceased respondent No.5- Jeeva Raj through five different registered sale deeds of even date i.e. of 30th July 2019 and thus, they have acquired right, title and interest in the land in question in place of legal representatives of deceased respondent No.5- Jeeva Raj. 7. 7. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioners opposed the application stating that the sale deed has been executed in breach of the interim stay order dated 02.02.1996 and legal representatives of deceased respondent No.5- Jeeva Raj are also represented through counsel and they are contesting the writ petition. Hence, subsequent purchasers are not required to be impleaded as party. 8. Having considered rival contentions of learned counsel for both parties, this Court finds that interim order dated 02.02.1996 was passed in favour of petitioner, in following terms:- “In case the petitioner is already in possession over the land in dispute, he shall not be dispossessed till further orders of this Court.” This interim stay order does not come in way in execution of the sale deeds by legal representatives of deceased respondent No.5- Jeeva Raj. This Court further finds that legal representatives of deceased respondent No.5 have not disputed the execution of sale deeds in favour of applicants, therefore, applicants may be allowed to be impleaded as party respondents along with legal representatives of deceased respondent No.5. No prejudice would cause to the petitioners by allowing impleadment of subsequent purchasers as party respondents to the present writ petition. 9. In view of above, applicants are allowed to be impleaded as party respondents in the present writ petition. It is made clear that applicants, who step in shoe of legal representatives of respondent No.5, would abide by the stand and pleadings taken by them in the present matter. 10. Learned counsel for applicants undertakes to file amended cause title within a period of two weeks. 11. Accordingly, application (2/2022) stands allowed.” 2. Since the applicant contested the matter against the respondents in the earlier rounds of litigation from the Court of Sub-Divisional Officer (hereinafter referred to as “SDO”) to the Board of Revenue (hereinafter referred to as “the Board”) and in the second round of litigation he was impleaded as respondent and looking to the controversy involved in both these matters which are identical and similar, the interim application No.1/2022 submitted by the applicant in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1945/2000 for his transposition stands allowed. The amended cause-title is ordered to be taken on the record. The Office is directed to place the same at appropriate place in the file. 3. The amended cause-title is ordered to be taken on the record. The Office is directed to place the same at appropriate place in the file. 3. Since common questions of law and facts are involved in these writ petitions, hence with the consent of counsel for the parties, arguments have been heard together and both these writ petitions are being decided by this common order. 4. By way of filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.560/1996, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 21.04.1993 passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer (hereinafter referred to as “the Board”) by which the judgment and decree dated 17.04.1973 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Beawer as well as dated 25.09.1989 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority (hereinafter referred to as “RAA”) have been quashed and set-aside. A challenge has been led to the impugned patta dated 16.12.1959 issued in favour of Ram Swaroop and Durga Prasad. 5. The successive writ petition bearing No.1945/2000 has been preferred against the impugned order dated 21.04.1993 and the order dated 09.10.1996 by which the review petition submitted by the petitioner against the original order dated 21.04.1993 has been rejected. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s ancestors Jasraj and others were having cultivatory possession over the land bearing Khasra Nos.164 & 166 (New Khasra Nos.181 & 183) situated at village Naya Nagar, Beawer District Ajmer, since 1934. Learned counsel submits that the registered lease deed of the aforesaid Khasra was executed in favour of Pujari Shri Hanuman Ji Mandir Mandir, i.e., Shiva Dayal on 18.04.1934. Learned counsel submits that the Ajmer Abolition of Intermediaries and Land Reforms Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1955”) came into force on 23.06.1955 and after demise of the said Pujari, i.e., Shiva Dayal, his son Ramswaroop executed a registered lease deed in favour of one- Durga Lal and Baid Raj Agarwal inspite of knowing the fact that the Pujari of the Mandir late Shiv Dayal has already leased out the property in question to the ancestors of the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that the Mandir Muafi land is vested in the State, in view of Section 4 of the Act of 1955, thus, the proprietary title of the Pujari on the Moorti Mandir Shri Hanuman Ji stood abolished and on the basis of cultivatory possession of the family of the petitioner, i.e., Jasraj became the Khatedar tenant of the land in question, as per Section 31 of the Act of 1955. 7. Learned counsel submits that Ram Swaroop and others were claiming themselves as intermediaries hence, they filed an application under Section 27(a) and Rule 48 of the Act of 1955 and Ajmer Abolition of Intermediaries and Land Reforms Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 1955”) before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Beawer for issuance of lease for personal cultivation. Learned counsel submits that Ram Swaroop was not an intermediary but the original intermediary was Pujari of the Moorti Mandir Shri Hanuman Ji, which was vested in the State Government, as per Section 4 of the Act of 1955. Hence, under these circumstances, the said Pujari was not having any locus to file the said application. Learned counsel submits that the Sub- Divisional Officer without having any jurisdiction, issued patta in favour of Ramswaroop and Durga Prasad. Learned counsel submits that patta of the said land was issued in their favour on 16.12.1959 but prior to that Ramswaroop expired on 15.03.1959 and likewise Durga Prasad expired on 27.04.1959. Learned counsel submits that patta was issued in favour of dead persons, hence the same was nonest, null and void in the eyes of law. 8. Learned counsel submits that after the death of Ramswaroop, his legal representatives sold the land in question by way of registered sale deed to Jeeva Raj, who is father of the respondent No.5/1 to 5/7. Since Ramswaroop was not having any right over the property in question, hence his legal representatives did not had any right to transfer the land in question in favour of the said respondents. 9. Since Ramswaroop was not having any right over the property in question, hence his legal representatives did not had any right to transfer the land in question in favour of the said respondents. 9. Learned counsel submits that Jeeva Raj filed an objection petition before the Assistant Settlement Officer, Beawer under Section 125 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1956”) but the objection petition was rejected vide order dated 27.06.1964 by the Additional Collector, Ajmer against which an appeal was preferred by him before Revenue Appellate Authority (hereinafter referred to as “RAA”) and the same was allowed vide order dated 05.11.1965, thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Board of Revenue (hereinafter referred to as “the Board”) and the appeal filed by the petitioner was allowed vide judgment dated 06.05.1971 by the Board and the order passed by the RAA was quashed and set- aside. Learned counsel submits that the judgment passed by the Board dated 06.05.1971 was never assailed by anyone before any competent court of law, hence the same has attained finality. 10. Learned counsel submits that inspite of conclusion of the aforesaid proceedings by competent court of law, the said Jeeva Raj started disturbing the possession of the petitioner, hence under these circumstances, a suit for declaration and injunction was submitted by the petitioner under the provisions of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1955”) against the respondents before the court of Sub-Divisional Officer and the same was decreed in favour of the petitioner against which an appeal was preferred by Jeeva Raj before RAA. The said appeal was rejected vide judgment dated 25.09.1981 against which the second appeal was preferred by the Legal Representatives of Jeeva Raj before the Board but the same was allowed vide judgment dated 21.04.1993 and the judgment and decree passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer as well as RAA were quashed and set-aside. 11. Learned counsel submits that aggrieved by the aforesaid judgments passed by the Board, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.560/1996, this writ petition along-with making challenge to the impugned patta dated 16.12.1959 which were issued in favour of the dead persons by the Sub-Divisional Officer without having any jurisdiction. 11. Learned counsel submits that aggrieved by the aforesaid judgments passed by the Board, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.560/1996, this writ petition along-with making challenge to the impugned patta dated 16.12.1959 which were issued in favour of the dead persons by the Sub-Divisional Officer without having any jurisdiction. Learned counsel submits that as per the provisions contained under the Act of 1955, the land in question could not have been transferred to any individual by other individuals who were not intermediary. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner got the right over the property in question through intermediary i.e., Pujari of the Mandir Shri Hanuman Ji in the year 1934, since then the ancestors and later on petitioner himself was in possession of the same but these facts were overlooked by the Board, while passing the impugned judgment. 12. Lastly, he argued that during pendency of the appeal before the Board, a Revenue Suit was filed by Mandir Murti, Shri Hanuman Ji through its next friend Gajendra Kumar for declaration and ejectment of the petitioner in the year 1990 before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Beawar and also for declaring him as Khatedar tenant of the land in question, but the said suit was dismissed vide judgment dated 20.08.1994 against which an appeal was preferred by the Mandir Moorti, Shri Hanuman Ji before the Revenue Appellate Authority, however, the same was also rejected as withdrawn vide order dated 15.10.1994. Learned counsel submits that, under these circumstances, the petitioner is the only rightful claimant and holder of the property in question and the order passed by the Board dated 21.04.1993 is required to be quashed and set-aside. Hence under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted. 13. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that after following the provisions contained under Sections 27, 28, 29 & 30 of the Act of 1955 the impugned orders were passed. As per Section 30 of the Act of 1955, once patta is issued and land is allotted to an intermediary under Section 29, then such land shall be held by the said person as khatedar tenant. The Sub-Divisional Officer, rightly allotted the patta in favour of Ram Swaroop and others. As per Section 30 of the Act of 1955, once patta is issued and land is allotted to an intermediary under Section 29, then such land shall be held by the said person as khatedar tenant. The Sub-Divisional Officer, rightly allotted the patta in favour of Ram Swaroop and others. Learned counsel submits that validity of the same was never assailed by the petitioner before any appellate forum. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner could have submitted an appeal under Section 66 of the Act of 1955 before the Collector concerned having jurisdiction but instead of doing so he has straightaway challenged the validity of the same before this Court. This Court has no jurisdiction to examine the correctness of the patta dated 16.12.1959 under its supervisory jurisdiction contained under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. He further submitted that there is a bar of jurisdiction under Section 78 of the Act of 1955 for filing any civil or revenue suit before any civil or revenue court as those courts have no jurisdiction to entertain such matter arising out of the provisions of the Act of 1955, hence under these circumstances, the Board has rightly allowed the appeal submitted by the respondents by framing issues and recording a cogent and reasoned finding, which requires no interference of this Court and hence, both the writ petitions are liable to be rejected. 14. It has also been argued by counsel for the respondents that after abolition of the intermediary by enactment of the Act of 1955, the patta of the land in question were rightly issued in favour of Ramswaroop and others and the property in question has been rightly transferred in favour of the respondents and these facts have been appreciated by the Board by passing a cogent and reasoned order, which requires no interference of this Court. Lastly, they argued that scope of jurisdiction of this Court, contained under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is limited and merits of the matter cannot be re-agitated while invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court. 15. In support of their contentions, counsel have placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Suo Motu Versus Commissioner, Jaipur & others (D.B. Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No.12931/2023) vide order dated 21.05.2024. 15. In support of their contentions, counsel have placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Suo Motu Versus Commissioner, Jaipur & others (D.B. Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No.12931/2023) vide order dated 21.05.2024. Learned counsel submits that in view of the submissions made hereinabove, both the writ petitions are liable to be rejected. 16. Mr. Neeraj Batra, GC appearing for the State submits that the land in question belongs to Mandir Shri Hanuman Ji, who is minor and the same cannot be sold or allotted to anyone and the Pujari of the said temple is simply a care taker and he has no authority to sale/alienate the property of Mandir Moorti Shri Hanuman Ji. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance on the order dated 21.01.2025 by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Rooda Ram & Others Versus The Board of Revenue, Ajmer & Others (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2981/1990) 17. In rejoinder, counsel for the petitioner submits that the application submitted by Ram Swaroop was not maintainable in view of Section 27 of the Act of 1955 as he was not intermediary. The Mandir Moorti-Shri Hanuman Ji, did not submit such application but even then without having any jurisdiction to entertain such application, the Sub-Divisional Officer has issued patta in question in favour of Ram Swaroop. Learned counsel submits that the learned Board has overlooked the provisions contained under Section 31 of the Act of 1955, which deals with the status of other persons holding land, hence under these circumstances, the order passed by the Board is bad in the eyes of law and the same is liable to be quashed and set-aside. Learned counsel further submits that there was no occasion or reason available with the petitioner to submit an appeal under Section 66 of the Act of 1955 inasmuch as the said allotment order was never communicated to the petitioner. 18. Heard and considered the arguments of both sides and perused the material available on the record. 19. The petitioners are claiming their right, title and interest over the property in question on the basis of the registered lease dated 18.04.1934 issued in favour of Jasraj, ancestors of the petitioners by the then Pujari of the Mandir Shri Hanuman Ji, i.e., Shiv Dayal. 19. The petitioners are claiming their right, title and interest over the property in question on the basis of the registered lease dated 18.04.1934 issued in favour of Jasraj, ancestors of the petitioners by the then Pujari of the Mandir Shri Hanuman Ji, i.e., Shiv Dayal. Thereafter, the Act of 1955 came into force w.e.f. 23.06.1955 and three years thereafter the son of Pujari Shiv Dayal i.e., Ram Swaroop executed a registered Lease Deed in favour of Durga Lal and Baid Raj Agarwal. In the meantime, the above muafi land of the Mandir Shri Hanuman Ji came to be vested in the State Government by virtue of Section 4 of the Act of 1955. The Assistant Settlement Officer recorded the land in question in favour of Jasraj under Section 31 of the Act of 1955 vide order dated 20.12.1958. Seven days thereafter Ram Swaroop and Durga Prasad submitted an application under Section 27(a) of the Act of 1955 for issuing lease of the said land in their favour and the Sub- Divisional Officer granted the same in their favour on 16.12.1959 by issuing patta in their name. It has been argued that prior to issuance of patta, the beneficiaries i.e., Ram Swaroop and Durga Prasad expired on 15.03.1959 and 27.04.1959 respectively. Hence the patta was issued in favour of the dead persons. It has been argued that patta issued in favour of the dead persons is ‘nonest’, ‘null and void’ in the eyes of law. But these facts were not brought in notice of the authority i.e. SDO when he issued patta in their names. On the basis of the aforesaid patta, the legal representatives of the said Ram Swaroop sold the land in question by way registered sale deed in favour of father of respondent Nos.5/1 to 5/7, i.e., Jeevraj. 20. Now, both the sides started their claims over the property in question, on the basis of registered lease deed dated 18.04.1934 and patta dated 16.12.1959 and registered sale deed dated30.06.1960. Hence, the battle started between the parties in the year1961, when Jeevraj filed objection petition before the Assistant Settlement Officer under Section 125 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (for short ‘the Act of 1956’), but the same was rejected on 27.06.1964. Hence, the battle started between the parties in the year1961, when Jeevraj filed objection petition before the Assistant Settlement Officer under Section 125 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (for short ‘the Act of 1956’), but the same was rejected on 27.06.1964. Jeevraj assailed the aforesaid order before RAA by filing appeal, and the said appeal was allowed vide order dated 05.11.1965 and the order passed by the SDO was quashed. The petitioner submitted second appeal before the Board and the same was allowed on 06.05.1971 with the following observations in para 10 to 14, which reads as under:- “10. We have considered the arguments advanced before us have perused the record or the case. It is an accepted position that upto to Smt. 2012 the possession was that of Jasraj S/o Ramrikh, who is the grand father or the appellant Yagsen. In Smt. 2013 and 2014 the land remained parat but the possession in the land records has been shown to be that of Mandir Hanumanji through Ramswarup. In Smt. 2015 as is evident from Ex.P.-5, the land was cultivated by Nanak for Kharif and by Durga Prasad for Rabi. 11. Chapter VII of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act relates to Survey and Records operations, and incorporates the procedure for settling disputes regarding entries in the record of rights. Disputes for the settlement of which specific procedure has not been prescribed under this Chapter, are to be settled in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 125 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act. This Section reads to under: “125. Settlement of disputes as to entries in record of rights: 1.) All other disputes regarding entries on the record of rights shall be decided on the basis of possession. 2.) If in the course of inquiry into a dispute under this Section, the Land Records Officer is unable to satisfy himself as to which party is in possession, he shall ascertain by summery enquiry who is the person best entitled to possession and shall decide the dispute accordingly. 3.) No order as to possession passed under this section shall debar any person from establishing his right to the property in any civil or revenue court having jurisdiction." 12. 3.) No order as to possession passed under this section shall debar any person from establishing his right to the property in any civil or revenue court having jurisdiction." 12. It is evident from the provisions of this section that whereas the right to the property can be established in any civil or revenue Court of competent jurisdiction, the Land Record Officer is required to settle the dispute regarding entries in the record of rights on the basis of possession. The point for determination before us is, therefore, reduced to the factum of possession in Smt. 2015. 13. As pointed out above, it is an admitted fact that upto Smt. 2012 the cultivatory possession was that of the appellant. In Smt. 2015, the disputed land was cultivated by Nanak for kharif. In view of Nanak's deposition and the entries in the khasra Girdhavari for Smt. 2015, it is established that in Smt. 2015 the cultivation for kharif was done by Nanak on behalf of Yagsen appellant. Section 57 of the Ajmer Tenancy & Land Records Act and Section 55 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act prescribe the procedure for surrender of a holding by a tenant. There is nothing on the record which shows that Yagsen who was in constructive possession of the land in kharif of Smt. 2015 surrendered the disputed or was ejected by due process of law. Neither is there anything on record to show that in Smt. 2015 Ramswarup was in possession of the disputed land. It is, therefore, established that in Smt. 2015 the land was cultivated by Nanak on behalf of the appellant Yagsen and the constructive possession was that of the appellant as a tenant. 14. We, therefore, accept this appeal, set aside the orders of the Revenue Appellate Authority dated 5.11.1965 and restore the order of the Additional Collector dated 27.6.1964.” It is informed by both the sides that the above judgment dated 06.05.1971 passed by the Board was not assailed by the respondents before any court of law, hence the same has attained finality. 21. During pendency of the above proceedings, the second battle started between the same parties, when the suit for declaration and injunction was filed from the petitioner side under Sections 88, 89, 92-A, 8/88 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, and the said suit was decreed in favour of the petitioner. 21. During pendency of the above proceedings, the second battle started between the same parties, when the suit for declaration and injunction was filed from the petitioner side under Sections 88, 89, 92-A, 8/88 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, and the said suit was decreed in favour of the petitioner. The other side Jeeva Raj on 17.04.1973, submitted an appeal before RAA but the same was rejected on 25.09.1981 against which he preferred second appeal before the Board and the same was allowed vide impugned judgment dated 21.04.1993. The aforesaid impugned judgment has been assailed by the petitioner in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.560/1996. It appears that a review petition was submitted by the petitioner against the judgment dated 21.04.1993 but the same was rejected by the Board vide order dated 09.10.1996. This successive order has been assailed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1945/2000. One of the reasons given by the Board for setting aside the judgment of SDO and RAA was that the petitioner has not challenged the validity of the patta issued in favour of Ram Swaroop & Durga Prasad on 16.12.1959. 22. It has been argued by counsel for the respondents that the patta dated 16.12.1959 was issued in favour of Ram Swaroop and Durga Prasad in terms of Sections 27, 28, 29 & 30 of the Act of 1955 and the only remedy available with the petitioner was to challenge the same before the Collector under Section 66 of the Act and the jurisdiction of civil and revenue act is barred under Section 78 of the Act. Hence, the judgment passed by the Board is just and proper. 23. On the contrary, it was argued by the petitioner that the application under Section 27 of the Act of 1955 itself could not have been submitted by Ram Swaroop and Durga Prasad for granting patta of the registered leased land, of the ancestors of the petitioner because both of them were not intermediary for getting the allotment of the land. The intermediary was the muafi mandir and the application was not submitted by its “Pujari”. 24. It has also been argued that the petitioner was not aware about the patta dated 16.12.1959 hence, there was no occasion available with him to avail the same by way of filing appeal under Section 66 of the Act before the Collector. The intermediary was the muafi mandir and the application was not submitted by its “Pujari”. 24. It has also been argued that the petitioner was not aware about the patta dated 16.12.1959 hence, there was no occasion available with him to avail the same by way of filing appeal under Section 66 of the Act before the Collector. The whole case of the petitioner is based on the provisions contained under Section 31 of the Act of 1955. It has also been argued by the petitioner that the patta dated 16.12.1959 was issued in favour of the deceased persons Ram Swaroop and Durga Prasad, who expired on 15.03.1959 and 27.04.1959 respectively. It is the case of the petitioner that the patta issued in favour of the dead persons is nonest, null and void as the same was issued after death of the original applicants. Several versions and cross versions have been made by both the sides. These disputed questions of facts could not be examined and adjudicated by this Court under its supervisory jurisdiction contained under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 25. Perusal of the impugned judgment dated 21.04.1993 passed by the Board indicates that the aforesaid facts and law referred hereunder by both the sides have not been considered by the Board and straightway the judgment passed by the SDO and RAA have been quashed and set-aside. Even the judgment dated 06.05.1971, passed by the Board in the earlier round of litigation was also not considered by the Board. 26. In the considered opinion of this Court, the matter is required to be examined afresh by the Board in the light of the above narrated facts and provisions of law, relied on by both the rival sides. The Board is also expected to look into the material aspect of the matter as to whether the patta dated 16.12.1959 was issued by the SDO in favour of Ram Swaroop and Durga Prasad in their lifetime or after their death. If the same if found to be issued in their favour after the death of Ram Swaroop and Durga Prasad then what would be the effect of such patta? Whether the patta would be treated as nonest or not? All these material facts are required to be decided in the light of the documents and submissions of both the sides. 27. Whether the patta would be treated as nonest or not? All these material facts are required to be decided in the light of the documents and submissions of both the sides. 27. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, the judgment dated 21.04.1993 and the review order dated 19.10.1996 passed by the Board stand quashed and set-aside. 28. The matter is remitted to the Board for fresh disposal of the appeal aforesaid. The parties are directed to appear before the Board on 28.05.2025. 29. Looking to the fact that the parties are fighting for their respective rights for last more than 5-6 decades, it is expected from the Board to make all possible endeavours to decide the appeal expeditiously as early as possible, preferably within a period of one year from the date of appearance of the parties. 30. With the aforesaid observations, both the writ petitions, stay applications and all pending applications (if any) stand disposed of. 31. Before parting with this order, it is made clear that the Board would decide the appeal afresh on the basis of the arguments and the material available on the record before it, after affording due opportunity of hearing to both the sides, without being influenced and prejudiced by any of the observations made by this Court.