Failure to challenge orders in time and non-joinder of parties can result in dismissal of a writ petition.

Prakash Tatia, J.-The case as presented by the petitioners has a long history, therefore, it will be worthwhile to mention facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this writ petition. According to the petitioners, the total area of land measuring 5 bighas 1 biswa situated in Pali Chak No.1 of Khasra Nos. 837/838 and 839 were in joint khatedari of Sayar Kanwar 1/10, Bastimal 7/ 40 and Leeladevi 11/20 share in the land. The names of the above co-sharers continued in the Jamabandi which is evident from the copy of the Jamabandi for the Samvat Year 2039-42 (Annexure-10). According to petitioners, Leeladevis husband Labhchand connived with the Patwari of the area, submitted a written complaint on 110.1984 to the Tehsildar, Pali showing the name of only Leeladevi as Khatedar tenant and, M/s. Kankaria Fabrics as using the above land for industrial purpose. According to the petitioners, other khatedars were not impleaded as parties and proceeding under Section 91/ 90-A of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (for Short the Act of 1956) was registered. The Tehsildar by order dated 210.1984, appointed the Patwari as Receiver for the property in dispute which according to the petitioners was only paper proceeding. According to the petitioners, an order of eviction was also passed by the Tehsildar on 31.07.1985 and that order was challenged upto second appeal but the second appeal was dismissed by the revenue appellate authority by order dated 15.07.1992 (Annexure-3). However, the Board of Revenue, by exercising power under Section 9 of the Act of 1956 remanded the matter back to the Tehsildar. The Tehsildar by order dated 16.08.1993 passed the order of eviction against the Khatedars of the land. This proceeding was also taken upto the second appeal which was dismissed by the revenue appellate authority by order dated 16.08.1993. M/s Kankaria Fabrics preferred a revision petition to challenge the order of the revenue appellate authority dated 16.08.1993. According to the petitioners, one of the co-sharers Sayaridevi settled her 1/10 share in the above agricultural land in favour of her sons Sohanlal, Sampatraj, Soorajmal and Ashok Kumar. On the basis of above settlement, the names were entered in the Jamabandi for the Samvat Year 2048-51. This settlement deed is dated 112.1990.

2. According to the petitioners, during the pendency of the Revision Petition (No. 323/1993) which was preferred by M/s Kankaria Fabrics, to challenge the order of the revenue appellate authority dated 16.08.1993, Smt. Leeladevi and M/s Kankaria Fabrics entered into a settlement and the co-khatedars Bastimal and Ghamandaram also joined in the settlement without informing any of the other co-khatedars and in pursuance of the settlement, the sale-deeds were executed and registered in favour of various persons. According to the petitioners, the seller sold the undivided share in the property, though the land has already been partitioned. It is also submitted that all the sale-deeds have been executed and got registered by Smt. Leeladevi through her son Rajkumar as her power of attorney holder, Bastimal and Ghamandraram through Parasmal (the partner of the M/s. Kankaria

Fabrics and brother of Leeladevi) as their power of attorney holder.

3. The Revision Petition No. 332/1993 filed by M/s Kankaria Fabrics was allowed by the Board of Revenue and the matter was remanded back to the Tehsildar by order dated 30.01.1997.

4. After remand, the Tehsildar registered the remanded case as Case No. 17/1997 and started proceeding from 15.05.1997. The Tehsildar by order dated 30.11.2000 summoned the Jamabandi and the site report from the Patwari so that the case under Section 90-B of the Act of 1956 can be prepared and may be sent for orders. According to the petitioners, the case continued before the Tehsildar till 20.08.2001 but no site report or Jamabandi were submitted before the Tehsildar.

5. According to the petitioners, on one hand, the proceedings in the said Case