Rule 113 of the Rajasthan High Court of Judicature Rules, 1952, is not applicable to writ petitions. A caveat is not effective unless notice of it is given to the opposite parties or their counsel by registered post.

1. - Two petitions for review/recall of the orders dated November 10, 1989 in Writ Petition No. 4937/89, by which the writ petition was dismissed in limine and stay order dated December 8, 1989, which was granted in Writ Petition No. 4419/89 have been filed. Since both the review petitions are inter-connected, they are disposed of byone order. The order dated November 10, 1989 was passed by Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Shri M.C. Jain as he was then and by me and the other order dated December 8, 1989 was passed by Hon'ble Justice Shri G.K. SHARMA as he was then and by me. Both the above mentioned Judges are no more attached with this Court.

2. It is submitted by Mr. SC Bhandari, learned Counsel that these review petitions should be heard by a Division Bench and not by Single Judge since the orders were passed by Division Bench of this Court. The learned Counsel has referred to Rule 64 of the Rajasthan High Court of Judicature Rules, 1952 (for brevity 'the Rules, 1952') and Rules 5 of Order 47 of Civil Procedure Code. I have carefully considered the provisions referred to by the learned Counsel. A bare reading of Rule 64 will show that when "an application for review of a judgment is filed the same shall be placed before the Judge or Judges by whom such judgment was delivered. If such Judge or Judges or any one or more of such Judges be no longer attached to the Court or one of them, are or is precluded by absence or other cause for a period of six months next after the application, from considering the decree or order to which the application refers, the application shall be laid before the Chief Justice who shall with due regard to the provisions of Rule 5 of Order 47 C.P.C. arrange for a Bench for the hearing and disposal of such application." Rules 5 of Order 47 C.P.C. provides that "when an application for review of an order was passed by more than one Judges, they continue to be attached to the Court at the time when application for review is presented, such application shall be heard and decided by such Judge or Judges or any of them shall hear the application, but no other Judge or Judges shall hear the same." So far as the present petitions are concerned, Hon'ble Shri M.C. Jain and Hon'ble Shri G.K. Sharma are no more attached with this Court. In Maji Mohan Kanwar and Ors. v. The State of Rajasthan and Anr., AIR 1967 Rajasthan 264 a Division Bench of this Court held that "if the decree or order sought to be reviewed is passed by a Division Bench consisting of two Judges and if both of them continue to be attached to the Court, then the application for review must be heard by both of them. If only one of the two Judges continues to be attached to the Court and the other one has retired, or is no longer attached to that Court for any other reason, then the application should be heard by the Single Judge, who continues to be attached to that Court. It cannot be heard by other Judges nor by the same Judge sitting with another Judge who was not a party to the original decree or order sought to be reviewed." In view of the above order of a Division Bench of this Court, I do not find any force in the preliminary objection raised by the learned Counsel which is, therefore, dismissed.

3. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that Revenue Board partly allowed the appeal of the petitioner regarding two Khasras and the appeal of the petitioner regarding remaining two Khasras was rejected. It is submitted that petitioner filed DBCWP No. 4937/89, which was dismissed in limine by order under view. It is submitted that the non-petitioners also filed DBCWP No. 4419/89 against the same order passed by Revenue Board. In this writ petition direction for issue of notice was given on December 8, 1989 by a Division Bench consisting of Hon'ble Justice Shri G.K. Sharma as he was then and by me. An order was also passed on the same date staying the operation of the order of Revenue* Board mentioned above, regarding