Narendra Kumar Jain, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE dispute, in both these writ petitions, relates to a public way in Khasra No. 1032, therefore, both the writ petitions heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. Shiv Lal, petitioner in Writ Petition No. 5677/2004, and Vankhandi, petitioner in Writ Petition No. 5731/2004, instituted two separate suits before the Assistant Collector, Nagar, under Sections 88, 89 and 188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, against the District Collector as well as Tehsildar. The other respondents were not impleaded as defendants in the suit. The trial court, vide its judgment and decree dated 30th April, 2001, decreed the suit of Shiv Lal and, vide judgment and decree dated 27th September, 2001, decreed the suit of Vankhandi. Being aggrieved with the same, Prahlad, Rishiram, Raman, Bacchuram, Charani, Shivram filed an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority challenging the judgment and decree dated 30th April, 2001, whereas the State Government as well as one Shivram S/o Rekhram filed two separate appeals before the Revenue Appellate Authority challenging the judgment and decree dated 27th September, 2001. The Revenue Appellate Authority, vide its judgment and decree dated 23rd November, 2002 dismissed the appeal filed by Prahlad and others, and similarly by consolidated order, also dismissed appeals filed by the State and Shivram. Thereafter, two separate second appeals were preferred before the Revenue Board - one by Prahlad and others, and another by Shivram S/o Rekhram. The Revenue Board, vide its separate judgment and order dated 11th June, 2004 allowed both the appeals and remitted the matter, for passing fresh decision, to the Court of Assistant Collector, Nagar. The said orders of remand passed in both the appeals have been challenged by the petitioners in these two separate writ petitions.
(3.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that the trial court as well as the first appellate court, both, decided the matter on merits and recorded a finding that the land, in dispute, was of khatedari rights of the petitioners and it was wrongly shown in the public way, therefore, their suit was rightly decreed. The Revenue Board committed an illegality in setting - aside the judgment and decree passed by both the courts below and in remanding the matter, therefore, he contended that the order passed by the Revenue Board be set -aside and that of the trial court and the appellate court be restored.;