Prakash Tatia, J.-Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 25.01.2001 by which the petitioners appeal against the order dated 27.3.1995 was dismissed.

3. It is worthwhile to mention here that the appeal was earlier decided by the Board of Revenue vide order dated 110.1997 but the State as well as the petitioner preferred review petitions challenging the order dated 110.1995. The order of Board of Revenue dated 110.1997 was set aside and the appeal was again heard and decided vide order dated 21.2001.

4. According to learned Counsel for the petitioner, the Board of Revenue committed serious error of fact in holding that the land measuring 12 bighas 10 biswas which was purchased by sale deed dated 010.1946 is different land than the land of Khasra No. 13 in which the petitioner had half share only.

5. This was precisely the point before the Board of Revenue and the Board of Revenue, after going through the record, held that both the lands are separate-one purchased by the sale deed dated 010.1946 and another of Khasra No. 13 in which the petitioner had half share only measuring 12 bighas 10 biswas and calculated the excess land