1 D. B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.1273/97 Gurchet Singh v. Gurdeep Singh & Others. DATE OF ORDER ::: 19/03/2008 HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. NARAYAN ROY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI Mr. Sudhir Sharma, for Appellant (s). Mr. Anil Bhandari for Mr. N.M.Lodha, AAG, for Respondents. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 24.11.1997, passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby and whereunder, the writ petition preferred by the non- appellant was allowed. The short controversy raised in the writ petition was pertaining to the order passed by the Board of Revenue, whereby a revision petition preferred against the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO) under the provisions of the Rajasthan (General Colony) Conditions Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1955'), was challenged. The Board of Revenue came to the conclusion that since a provision for appeal exists, therefore, merely 2 for the reason that the appellate authority was not present for some time, jurisdiction of the revisional Court cannot be invoked. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the writ petition was preferred and this Court, while referring to the issue, pertaining to the jurisdiction, held that in view of the judgment of this Court itself, the Board of Revenue can exercise revisional jurisdiction in exceptional circumstances. Averting to the merits of the case, the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that in view of the judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Jai Singh v. The State of Rajasthan, 1991 RLW (2) 172, the issue even on merit was considered, accordingly decided. In the judgment aforesaid, the Division Bench of this Court came to the conclusion that as per provisions of the Rajasthan Colonization Act, 1954 (for short, 'the Act of 1954') and Rules of 1955, the SDO has no jurisdiction to grant or pass an order providing way in the Khatedari rights acquired prior to the coming into force of the Act. Since, in the present matter also, Khatedari right was acquired by the petitioners prior to the Act of 1954, thus SDO was having no jurisdiction to pass the order in favour of the non- appellant and, accordingly, the matter was decided by the 3 learned Single Judge on merit itself. The perusal of the provisions of the Act of 1954 and the Rules of 1955, it becomes clear that the SDO was having no authority to pass the order in reference and has been held by the learned Single Judge. Even in appeal, the appellant has come up with a case that even if it is assumed that the SDO was not having jurisdiction to pass the order impugned, then also, he was having inherent right. We cannot accept the aforesaid proposition as has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellants, not only for the reasons that the SDO cannot act contrary to the provisions of of law but he is not having inherent jurisdiction or power to issue such order. The issue involved in the present matter has already been decided by the Division Bench of this Court in Jai Singh v. State of Rajasthan (Supra), thus we cannot accept the argument as has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellants, inasmuch as the order passed by the SDO is void ab initio and has to be treated as nullity for want of jurisdiction. In view of the above, we do not find any error in the 4 judgment of the learned Single Judge so as to interfere therein. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with no order as costs. (M. N. BHANDARI), J. (NARAYAN ROY), C.J. scd