facts, and therefore, is wholly illegal. The learned counsel would further submit that the Revenue Appellate Authority, Jaipur, while entertaining the Appeal No. 13 of 1975, preferred by the respondents-ex-soldiers, though made an interim order on 18th January, 1975, staying the execution of the order dated 30th December, 1974, which was in favour of the appellants/ petitioners; was not extended beyond 8th April, 1976, and therefore, the land in dispute became available for allotment and was rightly allotted vide order dated 27th October, 1979. Furthermore, since Rampal and Uda predecessors in title of the appellants had died during the pendency of the appeal and their legal representatives i.e. the appellants-petitioners, were not impleaded as parties to the proceedings before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Jaipur, hence, the order dated 31st May, 1989, passed on the appeal in favour of the respondents-ex-soldiers, is a nullity, and as such was not required to be challenged by the appellants/ petitioners and thus, the learned Single Judge committed a serious illegality in dismissing the writ applications of the appellants/ petitioners. The impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge has also been assailed for the reason that the learned Single Judge committed an illegality while holding that the status of deceased Rampal and Uda as complainant(s) in the appeal No.13 of 1975, decided vide judgment dated 31st May, 1989, pending before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Jaipur preferred by the respondents-ex-soldiers, and therefore, were not necessary parties to the proceedings, wherein the order dated 30th December, 1974, passed by the Additional Collector, Jaipur, was challenged by which the allotments made in
