Govind Mathur, J. - (1.) To question order dated 24.9.2013 this appeal is preferred.
(2.) In brief, facts of the case are that Shri Sal Khan S/o. Adrim Khan preferred a revenue suit before the court of learned Assistant Collector cum Pargana Adhikari, Barmer for declaration of khatedari rights relating to the land situated in Khasra No. 1978, 1989, 1981, 2001, 2083 and 2010 village Ranasar, Tehsil Shiv, District Barmer measuring 277 Bighas. The suit was dismissed by the judgment dated 30.5.1978. Being aggrieved, plaintiff Sal Khan preferred an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, that came to be accepted under a judgment dated 29.12.1980. The learned Revenue Appellate Authority accepted the suit and issued a decree of declaration and injunction. The Tehsildar, Shiv and the State of Rajasthan questioned correctness of the judgment dated 29.12.1980 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority by way of filing an appeal before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue altered the judgment given by the Revenue Appellate Authority and dismissed the suit. To challenge the judgment given by the Board of Revenue Shri Sal Khan preferred a petition for writ (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3458/1989) before a Single Bench of Rajasthan High Court and that came to be accepted by the judgment dated 9.7.1998. To challenge the judgment passed by learned Single Bench, an appeal was preferred before Division Bench of this Court and that came to be decided on 20.7.2010. The learned Division Bench set aside the judgment dated 9.7.1998 passed by the learned Single Bench and remanded the matter to the writ court for adjudication of the writ petition afresh. Suffice it to mention that the Division Bench accepted the appeal by observation that : "The writ court failed to appreciate that the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution is confined only to see whether any inferior court or tribunal has proceeded within its parameters and not to correct any error apparent on the fact of the record, much less of an error of law. The High Court while exercising its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution does not act as an appellate court of the tribunal and while exercising such jurisdiction, the High Court must not review or reweigh the evidence on which the inferior court or tribunal purports to have passed an order or to correct errors of law in the decision."
(3.) Learned Single Bench as per the directions given by Division Bench re-heard the writ petition and decided the same by the judgment dated 24.9.2013. During pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner-plaintiff Sal Khan died but unfortunately the factum of his death was not brought to the notice of writ court as no application was made either to delete his name or to substitute him by his legal representatives. The writ petition was considered and decided on its merits in absence of the writ petitioners legal representatives.;