Dinesh Maheshwari, J. - (1.) AFTER having heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioners and having perused the material placed on record, this Court is unable to find any reason to entertain this review petition in relation to the order dated 28.07.2011 as passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6700/2011.
(2.) THE writ petition aforesaid, filed by the Petitioners against the order dated 19.07.2011 as passed by the Board of Revenue in Revision Petition No. TA/1698/2011/Jodhpur, was considered on the submissions made on behalf of the Petitioners and was dismissed with observations by the order dated 28.07.2011 when this Court found no case of jurisdictional error so as to call for interference in the writ jurisdiction. The matter essentially relates to the prayer for temporary injunction as made by the Petitioners who have filed a revenue suit for partition and injunction against the Respondent No. 3 claiming the rights in the land in question as being the co -sharers. The Sub -Divisional Officer, Jodhpur ('the SDO') considered and rejected the prayer for temporary injunction so made by the Petitioners essentially with the observation that the disputed araji had been recorded in the revenue records separately in relation to the parties with separate accounts, i.e., the land in relation to the Petitioners was recorded as Khasra No. 1036/740 and that in relation to the Respondent No. 3 was recorded as Khasra No. 1842/1036. The order so passed by the SDO was confirmed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Jodhpur in appeal; and the revision petition filed by the Petitioners was also dismissed by the Board of Revenue. Aggrieved, the Petitioners filed the writ petition aforesaid.
(3.) THE writ petition aforesaid was considered by this Court on 28.07.2011 and, after hearing the learned Counsel for the Petitioners and perusing the material placed on record, this Court found no case of jurisdictional error in the orders concurrently passed by the subordinate revenue authorities. This Court particularly noticed the position of the existing revenue record where separate Khasra numbers were found assigned to the land said to be belonging to the predecessors of the Petitioners and that belonging to the Respondent No. 3. During the course of submissions in the writ petition, a question was also posed to the learned Counsel for the Petitioners if the Respondent No. 3 was in any manner raising the construction beyond the extent of 3 bighas and 19 biswas of land purchased by him to which, the only answer was that raising of any construction on the land in question would be interfering with the rights of the co -sharers. This Court found that the jointness as alleged by the Petitioners was in serious doubt and the existing record was to the contrary. Thus, after finding no case of jurisdictional error, this Court declined to interfere in the writ jurisdiction. However, in the interest of justice, it was made clear that the observations, whether made by this Court or by the subordinate revenue authorities in the orders impugned, shall remain confined to the purpose of considering the question of grant or refusal of temporary injunction and shall not otherwise have bearing on the merits of the case of either of the parties.;