M.N. Bhandari, J.

By this writ petition, a challenge is made to the order dated 21st February, 2012 passed by the Board of Revenue.

2. It is a case where a suit was filed by respondent No.5 Maszid Nargan Shah under Section 183 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 to seek possession of the land given to the petitioner for a period of 16 years. During pendency of the suit, an application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC was filed by the petitioner to challenge the jurisdiction of the revenue court. It is after alleging that property in dispute belongs to the Wakf Board. The application aforesaid was kept pending for its disposal along with suit. An application under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC was also filed.

3. The SDO Court thereupon decided the suit without giving an opportunity to the petitioner to lead evidence. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority which set aside the order of the SDO court with remand of the case. It is not only in reference to procedural lapses but taking into consideration that even opportunity to lead evidence was not given to the petitioner. Many other issues were considered therein for remand of the case. Both the parties i.e. petitioner and respondent No.5 preferred appeals before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue found that entire material was before the Revenue Appellate Authority thus instead of remanding the case, it should have decided the case.

4. It is stated by learned counsel for respondents that the appeal preferred by the respondent No.5 was to challenge the remand as according to them, decree was rightly passed by the SDO court. It was submitted that property in dispute does not belong to the Wakf Board and otherwise the petitioner had agreed to deliver the possession of the land on expiry of period of 16 years or even prior to it. The civil suit was also preferred by the petitioner but was decided against him.

5. Taking into consideration the facts aforesaid, the Board of Revenue rightly allowed the appeal preferred by the respondent No.5. It was also when an application under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC filed by the Wakf Board was withdrawn on 7th August, 2004. All six issues framed by the SDO court were rightly decided in favour of the respondent No.5 and against the petitioner. Thus a prayer is made to dismiss the writ petition.

6. I have considered the submissions of the parties and perused the record.

7. The facts of the case have already been given thus need not to be reiterated. A suit preferred under Section 183 of the Act of 1955 was decree. During pendency of the suit, an application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC was filed and was ordered to be decided at the time of final hearing of the suit. An application under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC was then filed by the Wakf Board but had been withdrawn. The order of the SDO court shows that subsequent to the aforesaid, defendant-petitioner was not given opportunity to lead evidence. In view of above, Revenue Appellate Authority interfered in the order of the SDO court with remand of the case. Many other issues were taken up for consideration to justify the order.

8. Both the parties challenged the order of the Revenue Appellate Authority. The appeal preferred by the respondent No.5 was allowed holding that order of the SDO court is proper and justified and thereby reversed the order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority. The perusal of the order passed by Board of Revenue does not show that finding recorded by the Revenue Appellate Authority for denial of opportunity to lead evidence to the petitioner was contrary to record. The perusal of the order passed by the Board of Revenue does not show any finding on it, whereas, it goes in root of the case. If party is not given opportunity to lead evidence then procedure adopted therein cannot be accepted. The Board of Revenue was under an obligation to deal with the issue when it was one of the reason taken by the Revenue Appellate Authority to remand the case.

9. In vie