1 D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.769/2006 Shrangari Devi Vs. Board of Revenue for Rajasthan at Ajmer and Ors. Date of Order :: 11.12.2007 HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. RAJESH BALIA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHANWAROO KHAN Mr. R.S. Saluja ) Mr. K.S. Yadav ) for the appellant. Mr. L.R. Upadhyaya, Dy. Govt. Advocate. Heard learned counsel for the parties. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 20.4.2006 dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant. The undisputed facts recorded by the learned Single Judge are that the petitioner had applied for small patch of land situated in Murabba No.156/61 of Chak 1 PHM (A) to the extent of lands held by him fall short of 25 Bighas, which was less than 5 Bighas. After issuance of notice on 16.4.1998, the other side did not appear to oppose the application and therefore, the applicant was allotted the small patch of land by charging double the reserve price in terms of Rule 14 read with Rule 17(1) of the Rajasthan Colonisation (Allotment of 2 Sale of Government Land in the Indira Gandhi Canal Colony Area) Rules, 1975 (for short 'the Rules of 1975' hereinafter). The order passed by the allotting authority was challenged by way of two separate appeals before the Revenue Appellate Authority. Appeal No.37/99 was filed by the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department, Anupgarh Division-II, Gharsana; and Appeal No.57/99 was filed by one Satyanarain asserting himself to be the Chairman of Baba Ramdev Trust Samiti. In the aforesaid appeals, the allotting authority as well as Tehsildar (Revenue), Khajuwala -respondent No.2 represented the State. The appeals were dismissed by the Revenue Appellate Authority on 13.6.2000. Again the order of the Revenue Appellate Authority dated 13.6.2000 was taken in revision by the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department before the Board of Revenue and while revision was pending before the Board of Revenue and before the matter came before the Board of Revenue, the impugned order was passed by the Collector cancelling the allotment. When the matter came before the Board of 3 Revenue, it was contended on behalf of the petitioners, with whom SDO, Khajuwala the allotting authority as well as Tehsildar also joined as petitioners, that the allotment has been cancelled by the Collector, Bikaner vide his order dated 9.7.2002. Considering the aforesaid fact, the appeal filed by the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department joined with the allotting authority as well as Tehsildar was dismissed as having become infructuous. This led to filing of the writ petition by allottee -appellant. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition and observed that the learned Member of the Board has of course, not thoroughly examined the order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority but has rightly stated that the order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority was required to be set aside as a natural consequence of the order passed by the Collector dated 9.7.2002. Hence, this appeal. These narration of the facts clearly discloses that the order of the Allotting Authority has already merged in the order of the Revenue Appellate Authority dated 13.6.2000 which was 4 superior authority to Collector and was not its subordinate whose order could be reviewed or corrected by him. After the order was passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority holding the allotment made by SDM to be valid, the Collector had no jurisdiction to set-aside the order passed by the subordinate authority originally which stood merged in the order of the Revenue Appellate Authority. The effect of the order of Collector is setting-aside of the order of the Revenue Appellate Authority. It was contended that the Collector had no jurisdiction to set aside the order passed by the Subordinate Authority which has merged into the order of the Revenue Appellate Authority. That order remains wholly without jurisdiction and the same could not be upheld and the same is void ab initio. It is admitted case that the Board of Revenue has not examined the order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority on merit. When the Collected passed the order of cancelling the order of SDM, the revision filed by Irrigation Deptt., one of the Department of the State Government was already pending. It is apparent that in the aforesaid circumstances, Collector has abused his authority by over-reaching the pending proceedings by setting at naught the order passed by his higher authority to favour another department of Government 5 which was already litigating before the Board of Revenue. Such an excess of jurisdiction by the Collector cannot be sustained. Apparently, the learned Single Judge has not examined this aspect of the matter. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the opinion that the order of the Board of Revenue holding the revision before it to be infructuous in view of the order passed by the Collector is wholly unwarranted. It is apparent that the order of Collector suffers from inherent lack of jurisdiction and cannot provide any foundation for valid order. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The judgment under appeal is set-aside. The writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and the order of the Board of Revenue dated 11.8.2005 is quashed. The matter is sent back to the Board of Revenue for deciding the matter afresh on merit uninfluenced with the order passed by the Collector. No costs. [BHANWAROO KHAN],J. [RAJESH BALIA],ACTG.CJ. RM/ 6