not impleaded the Department as party respondent in this writ petition. The revision, referred to supra, pending before the Board of Revenue involves various disputed questions of facts and thus, this Court’s extraordinary writ jurisdiction, cannot be invoked so as to enter into such disputed questions of facts. It may be reiterated that in a subsequent revenue proceeding filed by Shri Pep Singh and Shri Takhat Singh, the Revenue Appellate Authority, passed a restraint order on construction activities sought to be taken on the land in question while accepting the appeal under Section 225 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act by order dated 21.12.2020. In a revision filed against the said order, the Board of Revenue has modified the said order and while directing the parties to maintain status quo, the trial court has been directed to decide the original application under Section 212 of the Land Revenue Act within two months. Apparently thus, the competent revenue courts are seized of the issues adverted to in this writ petition. Considering the pleadings of the parties, it cannot be doubted that the instant writ petition involves seriously disputed questions of facts. While exercising the high prerogative writ jurisdiction, this Court cannot enter into and decide such disputed questions of facts and the appropriate forum to adjudicate such issues would be the revenue court/s concerned.
