1. By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner/appellant herein.

2. The matter has a chequered history. The appellant disposed of the property under the old law by oral agreement in the year 1955. The facts of the case are that the facts concisely stated are that in ceiling proceedings initiated against Motilal (petitioner herein) in respect of his agricultural land situated in village Raithal. Tehsil Mangrol District Kota, (now in District Baran), 30 bighas & 18 biswas of his land was declared surplus vide order dt.22/1/1979, thereby Motilal submitted option to surrender 30 bighas & 18 biswas of land out of Khasra No.9 of his village Raithal, to which Mathuralal (respondent No.5, herein) raised objection stating that he had purchased the land in dispute in the year 1958 and so it was an encumbered land. But, the Assistant Collector Baran, after having considered respondent No.5's objections and heard the petitioner rejected the objections vide his order dt.28/2/81(Ann.A), and directed the Tehsildar Mangrol to take possession of the land in dispute. Against order (Ann.A) rejecting objections, the respondent No.5 preferred an appeal but it was dismissed by the Additional Collector (ceiling) Kota vide order dt.27/12/82(Ann.B), resulting in filing second appeal by the respondent No.5 before the Revenue Board, which by its order dt.25/8/88(Ann.C) accepted the second appeal while setting aside orders (Anns.A&B) of the Authorised Officer and the appellate Authority (Ceiling) and accordingly the Asstt. Collector (Authorised Officer) was directed to acquire unencumbered land in lieu of the land in dispute which stood transferred in favour of Mathuralal. However, the petitioner preferred a review petition challenging order dt.25/8/88(Ann.C) of the Revenue Board which allowed the review petition under order dt.29/8/89(Ann.E) by quashing its earlier order dt.25/8/88 and thereby second appeal was directed to be reheard. Ultimately second appeal was reheard after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner but vide its judgment dt.19/12/89(Ann.F), the Revenue Board allowed second appeal holding that Mathuralal ought to have been given opportunity of hearing in view of Section 12(3) and therefore, his appeal was maintainable and consequently, the position remained that orders of the Authorised Officer and the Ceiling Appellate Authority dt.28/2/81 *27/12/82(Ann.A &B) stood quashed & set aside and resultantly the Revenue Board in its order dt.19/12/89(Ann.F) directed the Authorised Officer to take proceedings in accordance with law for unencumbered land. Hereagain, review petition was preferred by the petitioner challenging second appellate order dt.19/12/89(Ann.F) on the grounds that respondent No.5's appeal was not maintainable as he had not assailed original assessment order of declaring surplus land. However, the Revenue Board by its order dt.15/5/90(Ann.4) dismissed petitioner's second review petition holding it as not maintainable. Therefore, the petitioner preferred this writ petition at hand assailing validity of second appellate order dt.19/12/89(Ann.F) and order in review petition dt.14/5/90(Ann.H). This writ petition albeit was dismissed by this Court under its judgment dt.05/07/1991, but the Apex Court remanded back under an order dt.23/11/92 in Civil Appeal No.4946/92(arising out of SLP (Civil) No.15256/91 directing this Court to decide the question of validity of the transfer in favour of Mathuralal and thereafter decide the question if there was any surplus land with the appellant (Motilal) exceeding the ceiling limit. As per the Apex Court, this court in earlier order dt.5/7/91, failed to determine the question whether the land transferred in favour of Mathuralal was valid transfer or not. Hence, fate of this writ petition in its second inning hinges on the crucial ques