1 14 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7546/2009. Smt. Tejpal Kaur @ Tej Kaur Vs. State of Rajashtna & Ors. Date of Order :: 29th July 2009. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. J.D.S. Bhati, for the petitioner. ... BY THE COURT: Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the material placed on record, this Court is unable to find even a wee bit of justification to entertain this writ petition against the order dated 30.11.2000 (Annex.3) as passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Sriganganagar and the order dated 17.11.2009 (Annex.4) as passed by the Board of Revenue in the matter of allotment of the land in dispute. The petitioner contends that the allotment was indeed made in his favour on 12.11.1997 and requisite amount was also deposited by him but the respondent No.4 proceeded to question the allotment by way of an appeal (bearing No. 119/1998) directly before the Revenue Appellate Authority without even approaching the allotting authority. It is noticed from the observations of the learned Revenue Appellate Authority that the facts were not clear if the allotment came to be made in favour of the petitioner after compliance of all the requirements of the Rules and the 2 appellant (respondent No.4 herein) also alleged that proceedings under Section 22 had been adopted against him and his application for allotment was also pending. In the given circumstances, the Revenue Appellate Authority considered it proper to set aside the allotment order dated 12.11.1997 and to remand the matter to the allotting authority to take a decision afresh after hearing the parties. The learned Member of the Board of Revenue has found no reason to interfere in such a remand order. It cannot be said that the allotment as made in favour of the petitioner on 12.11.1997 could not have been challenged by the respondent No.4 by way of an appeal. The said respondent, while maintaining the appeal, indeed sought the leave of the Court that was granted on 30.04.1998 as observed in paragraph-2 of the impugned order dated 30.11.2000. Looking to the contentious issues being involved, and after finding that the allotment order had been made without enquiring into the relevant facts, if the appellate authority considered it just and proper to remand the matter for decision afresh, the proposition remains unexceptionable. The orders as passed by the Revenue Authorities in this cannot be said to be suffering from any jurisdictional error leading to failure of justice so as to warrant interference in the writ jurisdiction. The writ petition fails and is, therefore, rejected. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. //Mohan//