ORDER :

Arun Bhansali, J.

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners aggrieved against the orders dated 26.02.2018 (Annex. 7) passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Udaipur ('RAA') and 28.05.2019 (Annex. 8) passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer ('BOR'), whereby the matter has been remanded to the SDO and the appeal filed by the petitioners has been rejected, respectively.

2. It is, inter-alia, indicated in the writ petition that the petitioners were having physical and cultivatory possession over the agriculture land comprised in Araji No. 995, 996, 1005, 1237, 1238 & 1239, situated at Savinda Kheda, Tehsil Girwa, District Udaipur. The land in dispute, it is claimed, was wrongly recorded as 'bilanaam' in the year 1969 on the basis of report of Patwari Halka based on proceedings initiated under Section 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 ('the Act'). The Additional Tehsildar by its order dated 13.05.1969 quashed and set-aside the order passed by the Patwari, however, the land was not recorded in the name of petitioners' father Bhanwar Lal, resulting in petitioners filing a suit for declaration and injunction before the SDO, Udaipur under Sections 88 & 188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955.

3. Subsequently, the land acquisition proceedings were initiated, wherein qua the land in dispute, notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued.

4. Aggrieved against that, the petitioners filed SBCWP No. 6342/1991, which came to be allowed by order dated 15.05.1992.

5. The suit continued before the Sub-Divisional Officer ('SDO'), during which, a settlement was arrived at between the petitioners and respondent-UIT in respect of the land in question on 22.08.2008, which, inter-alia, provided that 15% developed land comprised in Khasra Nos. 995, 996, 1005, 1237, 1238 & 1239 was being reserved, which would be given to the petitioners after final decision in the pending matter in favour of the petitioners.

6. The suit filed by the petitioners came to be dismissed by the SDO, Girwa by its judgment dated 14.09.2015 (Annex. 6). In the said judgment, though five issues were framed and evidence was led by the parties, the SDO while observing that the documentary and oral evidence was so much interlinked that instead of determination issue-wise, in one paragraph observed that material documentary evidence to prove the possession has not been produced, the land has never been recorded in favour of the plaintiffs and consequently rejected the suit.

7. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners filed first appeal before the RAA. The RAA decided the appeal on 26.02.2018 and by judgment (Annex. 7) came to the conclusion that the provisions of Order XX, Rule 5 CPC, whereby issue-wise decision is required to be given, was violated by the SDO, as settlement has been arrived at between the parties, there was prima-facie no basis for ignoring the same and consequently, setting aside the judgment dated 14.09.2015 passed by the SDO, remanded back the matter to the SDO to decide the suit based on available evidence issue-wise.

8. Feeling aggrieved against the order passed by the RAA to the extent of remand to the SDO, the petitioners filed second appeal before the BOR. The BOR by its impugned judgment dated 28.05.2019 (Annex. 8) reiterated the decision of the RAA pertaining to violation of provisions of Order XX, Rule 5 CPC and found that the order of remand was justified. The BOR also came to the conclusion that the additional issue based on the plea raised by the defendant arose in the matter and while framing the said issue, came to the conclusion that in the order of remand passed by the RAA, no interference was called for and rejected the appeal.

9. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the RAA and the BOR were not justified in remanding back the matter to the SDO, inasmuch as, evidence on record was sufficient for the RAA to determine the case finally and on account of unnecessary remand, the petitioner