- (1.)THIS is a revision against order of Collector Jaipur dated 25-10-62 and Tehsildar, Jaipur dated 30-9-63.
(2.)THE facts are that on 25-10-62 the Collector, Jaipur sent an order to Tehsildar, Jaipur and enclosed a copy of letter from Superintendent Government Gardens. By this order the Tehsildar was directed to remove a Tea Stall of Chhatturnal. THE Tehsildar sent a report on 15-4-63 that his jurisdiction was not attracted under sec. 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act as it applies only to Siway Chak land. THE Collector thereupon directed that the land was Government Property and the possession of Chhattumal was without lawful authority and so the trespass should be removed. It was directed that definition of land in sec. 88 should be referred. THEreupon the Tehsildar on 30-9-63 directed Chhattumal to remove his Tea Stall. He has come in revision. I have heard the advocate for the petitioner as also the Government Advocate and have perused the record.
The Government Advocate argued that the revision was not maintainable, as a Second Appeal lay to the Board of Revenue under sec. 76 of Rajasthan Land Revenue Act. The Advocate for revision is stated that in this case the Second Appeal lay to the Revenue Appellate Authority and not to the Board and that as it was a glaring case of misuse of jurisdiction, the order of the Collector should be set aside inspite of the fact that it could be appealed against before the Revenue Appellate Authority and this was not done.

I have considered the matter. Inspite of the reference to see. 91 of Rajasthan Land Revenue Act in order of Collector dated 26-10-62, the case does not fall in its ambit. In his order of 14-5-63 the Collector has referred to definition of land in sec. 88 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act. I do not find any such definition in that section but evidently the order of Collector is covered by that section and the proceedings are to be treated as falling under it. R. R. D. 1958 page 36 holds that proceedings under sec. 88 are of a non-judicial type and the Board of Revenue can not entertain any appeal or revision against an order in such a matter.

In view of this I uphold the objection of the Government Advocate and reject the revision petition as not maintainable. .

;