1 D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.832/2009 Smt. Kamla Vs. Board of Revenue & Ors. Date of Order :: 08-02-2010 HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JAGDISH BHALLA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. C.S. Kotwani, for the appellant. By way of this intra-court appeal, the appellant seeks to question the order dated 9.10.2009 as passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing the writ petition against the orders dated 12.12.2001 and 01.04.2009 as passed by the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer (for short, 'the Board'). By the order dated 12.12.2001, the Board proceeded to consider the revision petition, as preferred under Rule 23 of the Rajasthan Colonisation (Allotment & Sale of Government Land in Indira Gandhi Canal Colony Area) Rules, 1975 (in short, 'the Rules of 1975') and set aside allotment of 25 bighas of land comprised in Murabba No.126/31 as allegedly made in favour of the appellant on 24.04.2001 essentially on the ground that the allotment was made without complying with the mandatory requirements of the Rules of 1975, more particularly Rules 18 to 20. The learned member of the Board found that there was nothing on record to show the publication of the notice for open auction and then, the fact of the matter was that in relation to the land in question, only the appellant submitted a sealed cover bid on 09.04.2001 and on the same day, the proceedings were concluded in her favour. It was also noticed that in the said proceedings, the Colonisation Tehsildar and representative of the Collector were not even present, though they 2 ought to have been there as members of the auction committee. The Board, therefore, set aside the allotment as made in favour of the appellant on 24.04.2001; and directed the allotting authority to proceed with the allotment and sale of the land in question in accordance with law and after adopting the requisite proceedings. It appears that thereafter, the appellant filed a review petition, that remained pending and ultimately, came to be dismissed by the Board on 01.04.2009 after finding no case of any apparent error. The appellant attempted to question the said orders as passed by the Board by way of the writ petition but the learned Single Judge declined to exercise writ jurisdiction in favour of the appellant with the observation that when the Board has found that the land in question was not put to public auction and a single offer made by the appellant by way of sealed bid had been accepted; and when it was not shown that the proceedings were conducted in accordance with the procedure laid down under Rules 18 to 20 of the Rules of 1975, the finding arrived at by the Board could not be faulted with. Seeking to assail the orders aforesaid, it has been contended by the learned counsel that there has not been any fault on the part of the appellant who participated in the proceedings as advertised by the authorities and offered a sealed cover bid as invited. Learned counsel further submitted that the appellant has been continuing in possession of the land in question for about a decade and for special equity existing in favour of the appellant, the allotment be not disturbed at this stage. The submissions, in our opinion, remain bereft of substance. The findings as recorded by the Board are clear and specific that the land in question was not put to sale while adhering to the requirements of Rules of 1975 when sealed bids were invited and then, 3 only one bid allegedly came forward from the appellant and then, even the relevant members of the Committee like the member Secretary, Colonisation Tehsildar and representative of the District Collector were not present as their signatures were not available on the auction proceedings. In the face of such findings, the allotment in question could not have been countenanced; and the Board was apparently justified in setting aside the same. It is noticed that the attempted alienation of the land in question on 24.04.2001 was immediately questioned by the revisionist before the Board and in fact, the Board allowed the revision petition way back on 12.12.2001. Thereafter, the appellant preferred a review petition before the Board, that came to be decided on 01.04.2009. During the course of submissions, though it has been suggested before us that the appellant had been in continuous possession but undeniable position is that, if at all, the appellant continued in possession until the date of passing of the order in the review petition per the force of interim orders only. In the given set of facts and circumstances, we are unable to find any special equity existing in favour of the appellant as she had continued in possession per the force of interim orders; and else, their had been serious questions on the validity of the proceeding for sale. Before parting, we may also observe that we have reservations on the very maintainability of the review petition before the Board. We do not find any specific provision for maintaining any such review petition before the Board under the Rules of 1975; and the learned counsel for the appellant also conceded that there is no specific provision for filing of such review petition but submitted that the review petition was filed before the Board under Section 86 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 4 1956 read with Section 5 of the Rajasthan Colonisation Act, 1954 as per its title. It is difficult to accept that the provisions of review under the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act could be imported for maintaining a review petition in relation to the order passed by the Board in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Rule 23 of the Rules of 1975 without there being specific provision in that regard in the said Rules of 1975. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order as passed by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed in limine. [DINESH MAHESHWARI],J. [JAGDISH BHALLA], CJ. Praveen