JUDGMENT
Rajesh Balia, J.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellants.
2. In this appeal challenge is to the order of the learned Single Judge dated 7th December, 1999 allowing the writ petition No. 3869/89. The appeal has arisen in the following circumstances.
3. The petitioners were the successors in interest of the original mortgagees of the land Shri Ambalal and Devilal, the said mortgagees were in possession of the land in question since Samvat Year 1995 corresponding to English calendar year 1938 as a result of the mortgage deed executed in their favour. Initially, by an unregistered sale, the equity of redemption was also sold in favour of the said mortgagees by the original holders of the land in 1954 but because the document of sale of equity of redemption remained unregistered and unstamped, it was not acted upon by the Revenue authorities for making necessary changes in the land records to that effect. Thereafter, the registered sale deed was executed on 20th July, 1972 transferring of equity of redemption. When this sale deed was executed, the present appellants-respondents No. 4 to 6 in the writ petition, filed a suit for pre-emption claiming their right to purchase the land as co-sharers. That suit was dismissed on 2nd Feb., 1977 and appeal was also dismissed on 22nd August, 1988. The decree of dismissal became final. Thereafter, the land was mutated in the name of the buyers, against which also appeal was preferred by the same set of persons namely the present appellants which stood abated because during the pendency of the said litigation both Ambalal and Devilal had died and their legal representatives were not brought on record. On failure to secure the rights of original holders in the land to be transferred to themselves the said complainants resorted to another methodology by making an application on 14th March, 1980 complaining about the transfer in question before the Collector for making a reference to the Board, which reference was granted by the Board of Revenue vide order dated 27th Sept., 1989. That order of the Board of Revenue dated 27th Sept., 1989 was challenged by way of writ petition before this Court by the successors in interest of the buyers of the land who were sought to be ousted therefrom.
4. The learned Single Judge vide order under appeal has held that exercise of power of reference at this distance of time in the facts and circumstances of the case was after unreasonable delay and the rights of the parties ought not to have been affected particularly at the instance of a complainant who has consistently failed in their endeavour to get the land transferred to themselves.
5. Having heard learned Counsel for the appellants and perused the material on record, we are of the opinion that no interference is called for in exercise of the discretion by the learned Single Judge.
6. The appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.