Arun Bhansali, J.

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the order dated 15.9.1999 passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer, whereby, the application filed by the petitioner under Section 221 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (‘the Act 1955’) aggrieved against the judgment and decree dated 27.9.1997 passed by the S.D.O. Anoopgarh has been rejected.

2. Respondent Dalip Singh filed a suit for division of holding under Section 53 of the Act against his father and brother qua the land situated at village Momewala, Tehsil Anoopgarh, which after colonization became part of Chak 5 MD. It was inter-alia indicated that based on family settlement, which was registered on 25.5.1970, the petitioner got 60 Bigha 12 Biswa land and his brother received 50 Bigha of land, however, Dalip Singh, who received 10 Bigha land in excess did not retain excess land and both the brothers partitioned the land equally. It was indicated that the land continues to stand in the revenue record in the name of their father and, therefore, the suit was being filed.

3. A consent written statement was filed by both the defendants i.e. father and brother.

4. During the pendency of the suit, an application under Order I Rule 10 CPC was filed by the petitioner Devki inter-alia claiming that father of the plaintiff had given a Power of Attorney dated 29.10.1959 to one Chunni Lal S/o Ganga Ram and the said Power of Attorney holder Chunni Lal transferred 49 Bigha 1 Biswa land to applicant Devi and one Banarsi Das out of which 25 Bigha land was sold to Banarsi Das and 24 Bigha 1 Biswa was transferred to Devki on 24.11.1959 by a registered sale deed. It was claimed that as the part of the land has already been transferred to the applicants, they were necessary parties to the suit and be impleaded as party.

5. The application was opposed by the plaintiff and the averments made in the application were denied. It was submitted that the said applicants never came in possession of the land in question and when plaintiff's elder brothers came to know of the said document, they filed proceedings in the year 1969 before the Assistant Colonization Commissioner under Section 92A of the Act, which suit was decreed on 19.6.1971. Based on the said averments, it was submitted that the applicant was not a necessary party.

6. The S.D.O. by his order dated 22.6.1998, came to the conclusion that the petitioner Devki was not a necessary party and rejected the application.

Whereafter, the suit was decreed by the S.D.O. on 27.7.1998 wherein, based on the evidence, oral and documentary available on record, the decree as prayed for was granted.

7. The petitioner, thereafter, approached the Board of Revenue under Section 221 of the Act alleging that the part of the property in question has been transferred to the petitioner and Banarsi Das by registered sale deed dated 24.11.1959, they were not impleaded as party to the suit; the suit was of collusive nature; when application was filed for impleadment as party to the said suit, the same was rejected on 22.6.1998 against which the petitioner filed revision petition before the Board of Revenue in which stay was granted on 22.7.1998 and despite grant of stay, the suit was decreed on 27.7.1998 and, therefore, the decree passed by the S.D.O. was liable to be quashed and set aside.

8. On behalf of the respondents, preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the proceedings under Section 221 of the Act was raised and after hearing the parties, the Board came to the conclusion that merely based on the allegation that the decree is collusive, the powers under Section 221 of the Act cannot be exercised and observing that the petitioner Devki had remedy of first and second appeal, she is free to take proceedings in accordance with the said provisions, accepted the preliminary objection and dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner.

9. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that after rejection of the