M.L. Joshi, J.
1. The only point raised in this writ petition is that whether it is open to the Jagir Commissioner to recognise property to be the personal property of the Jagirdar even if the Jagirdar has failed to file a list of his private properties as provided under Section 23 read with Rules 21 and 22 of the Rajasthan Land Reform and Resumption of Jagir Rules 1954, hereinafter called the Rules.
2. The Jagir Uniara was resumed on 16th of June, 1954, by issuance of a notification by the State Government under Section 21 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Jagir Resumption Act, 1952, hereinafter called the Act. It it not disputed that the Respondent No. 1 had submitted a list of properties on June 17, 1954 The Jagir Commissioner had also decided the matter pertaining to the list of personal properties of the said Jagirdar on 2nd of November, 1962 Being aggrieved against the order of the Jagir Commissioner an appeal was filed before the Board of Revenue. During the course of arguments it was felt that the appeal involved important questions of law. The Division Bench of the Revenue Board, therefore, referred two questions to the Larger Bench of the Revenue Board consisting of 3 Members The Larger Bench answered the two questions in affirmative one of which was whether the Jagir Commissioner could recognise the properties as private properties of the Jagirdar even if the Jagirdar had failed to furnish the list as required under the Act and Rules thereunder. The Revenue Board decided this question in affirmative and the matter was sent to the Division Bench for its decision and it decided the case after finalising the personal properties of the respondent Jagirdar by its order dated 30-6-65 and which has not been challenged by the State. The order has, therefore, become final in regard to the private properties of the respondent Jagirdar.
3. Before us the petitioner has not challenged the order of the Revenue Board relating to the finalisation of the list of the private properties but has raised only an academic question relating to the interpretation of Section 27 and Rules 22 and 23, of the Act and the Rules respectively. It is true that the Revenue Board had given interpretation to the above provision but in view of the fact that the decision of the Revenue Board dated 30-6-b5 has not been challenged the question has become merely an academic as there is no dispute left between the parties. We then fore, do not want to express our opinion on the correctness of the answer rendered by the Revenue Board on the question as whether the Jagir Commissioner could determine the question of private properties even if no list was submitted by the Jagirdar under Rules 21 and 22 of the Rules.
4. In this view of the matter, we dismiss the writ petition. There shall, be no order as to costs.