ORDER  :

NUPUR BHATI, J.

1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayers:-

“(a) Order dated 27.06.2023 (Annexure-5) read with order dated 17.10.2023 (Annexure-7) passed by the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer may kindly be quashed and set aside.

(b) The impugned action of the respondents may kindly be declared bad in the eye of law.

(c) During the pendency of this petition, if any order is passed or any action is taken against the petitioners prejudicial to their interests, the same may kindly be taken on record and may be quashed and set aside.”

2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs, Mangalchand (now deceased) and other plaintiffs, filed a suit against defendant- Kisturchand and others under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act and the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act before the Assistant Collector, Bikaner (Case No. 105/2011). The suit was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 30.12.2011. It later emerged that one of the parties, Suganaram, had expired on 21.01.2008, yet the judgment was passed without bringing his legal heirs on record. The plaintiffs filed a first appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner (Appeal No. 37/2012), in which a dead person was impleaded as a party.

3. During the pendency of the appeal, Kamal Kishore, Magharam, and respondent No.1, Kisturchand, expired. No application for substitution of their legal representatives was filed. Despite this, the Revenue Appellate Authority proceeded to allow the appeal and passed an order dated 02.06.2023. Aggrieved thereby, respondent No.2 preferred a second appeal before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue, vide order dated 27.06.2023, set aside both the judgments namely, the order passed by the Assistant Collector dated 30.12.2011 and the order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority dated 02.06.2023 and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication after impleading the legal heirs of the deceased parties. Petitioner No.5 thereafter filed a review petition against the said order before the Board of Revenue; however, the same was dismissed vide order dated 17.10.2023 (Annexure-7). Consequently, the petitioners have preferred the present writ petition challenging both the orders passed by the Board of Revenue, i.e., the order dated 27.06.2023 (Annexure-5) and the review order dated 17.10.2023 (Annexure-7).

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the mere fact of death of certain parties during the pendency of the appeal did not automatically render the judgment dated 02.06.2023 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority void or without jurisdiction, particularly when the controversy involved substantive rights in land and the remaining parties were effectively representing the interest of the dead persons. He further submits that the order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority was, therefore, not a nullity.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Board of Revenue has erred in mechanically setting aside the well-reasoned order dated 02.06.2023 without examining whether any real prejudice had been caused to the respondents on account of non- substitution of legal heirs. He further submits that it is well settled that procedural lapses, unless resulting in failure of justice, ought not to defeat substantive adjudication.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the appeal had not abated in its entirety and the Revenue Appellate Authority was competent to decide the matter on merits, particularly when the rights claimed were joint and indivisible. He further submits that the remand ordered by the Board of Revenue has unnecessarily prolonged the litigation, which is contrary to the settled principle that courts should avoid remands where the matter can be finally decided.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned orders dated 27.06.2023 (Annexure-5) and 17.10.2023 (Annexure-7) passed by the Board of Revenue suffer from legal infirmity and deserve to be qua