JAIN, J. - (1.) THIS Special Appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated March 4, 1991 by which he has dismissed the writ petition.
(2.) THE facts giving rise to the writ petition may be summarised thus. Agricultural land bearing Khasra No. 173 measuring 33 Bigha and 7 Biswas, Khasra No. 173/1 measuring 1 Bigha and 16 Biswas and Khasra No. 174 measuring 8 biswas, in all measuring 36 Bighas and 12 Biswas, situated in the town of Sumerpur (Pali) belonged to one Poonamdas son of Shri Chain Das by caste Sadh. Prior to the year 1942, it was in cultivatory possession of Poonamdas as per revenue records. He transferred the same during his life time to one Chhagan Singh by a registered sale-deed dated February 27, 1969. In 1985, Chhagan Singh duly obtained permission for its fragmentation under Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act and actually divided it into small plots, each measuring 200-300 sq. Yds. He sold 218 plots to various persons, including the petitioner. THE Petitioner moved an application for its conversion for residential and commercial purposes under the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment, Conversion and Regularisation of Agricultural Land for Residential and Commercial Purposes in Urban Areas) Rules, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') and deposited the requisite charges. THErefore, he got 'no Objection Certificate' from the Authorised Officer. One Babu Lal filed a complaint before the Collector, Pali stating that the said Poonam Das belonged to Scheduled Caste and his land was wrongly transferred under Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. On July 20, 1987, the Collector, Pali ordered to maintain the status quo. It was vacated on May 13, 1988. Babulal then lodged a complaint in Municipality, Sumerpur. On this complaint, the Administrator passed an order on December 12, 1988 for maintaining status quo. But on appeal, the Director, Local Bodies, vacated his order on January 20, 1989. THEreafter, Babulal through Magna Ram filed a suit before the Sub Divisional Officer, Bali, who vide order dated March 23, 1989 directed for maintaining status quo and this stay order was also stayed by the Revenue Appellate Authority. Babulal then approached the Revenue Minister complaining that the land belonged to Scheduled Caste Community and obtained a stay order on June 12, 1989. Writ petition No. 4334/89 was filed. It was dismissed on January 29,1990 as having become infructuous. Meanwhile, the suit was transferred to Pali and the stay order was vacated. Against it, Babulal filed an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Jodhpur. It is pending. On February 22, 1990, one Khima Ram also filed an appeal under Section 75 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act (hereinafter to be called 'the Act') before the Revenue Appellate Authority against the conversion granted in the year 1984 of the above land on the plea that Poonam Das belonged to Scheduled Caste community and the transfer of the land in favour of a non-Scheduled Caste person was not proper as it was hit by section 42 of the Act. THE Revenue Appellate Authority on April 24, 1990 vide Annexure 5 passed an exparte order, and thereafter, on May 16, 1990 vide Annexure 6 the Revenue Appellate Authority, cancelled the pattas granted to the petitioner and others. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred a writ petition challenging the orders Annexures 5 and 6. During the pendency of the writ petition, Babulal and Ram Gopal were impleaded as respondents. Without entering into the merits and the question of delay and latches, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that the appeal was perfectly maintainable under Section 75 of the Act. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Authorised Officer was exercising power of the State Government under Section 90a of the Act, no appeal lay under Section 75 of the Act to the Revenue Appellate Authority against an order of the State Government and as such the learned Single Judge seriously erred to hold that an appeal lay under Section 75 of the Act against an order of Authorised Officer. He further contended that under Rule 2 (a) of the Rules, the State Government may specially empower by notification an officer of any department and it is not necessary that he should be an officer of the revenue department only. He lastly contended that the provisions regarding the appeals and revisions have been deleted from the Rules as the State Government realised that neither appeal nor revision is maintainable against his order. The learned Government Advocate and the learned counsel for the respondents duly supported the order under challenge. Section 90a of the Act deals with the provisions relating to the conversion of agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes. Its sub Section (2) runs as under: - " (2) Any such person desiring to use such land or any part thereof for any purpose other than that of agriculture shall apply for the requisite permission in the prescribed manner and to the prescribed officer or authority and every such application shall contain the prescribed particulars. " The Rules have been framed in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (XI-A) of sub section (2) of Section 261 read with section 90a, 102 and clauses (a) and (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 260 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956. Section 260 (1) of the Act runs as under: - "260. Delegation (1) The State Government may, by notification in the official Gazette. (a) delegate all or any of its powers under this Act, except the power to make rules, to the Board or the Commissioner or the Settlement Commissioner or the Director of Land Records or a Collector,or (b) direct that any duties imposed and powers conferred by this Act or the rules made thereunder or by any other law for the time being in force or the rules made under such other law on any officer or authority appointed or constituted under this Act or the rules made thereunder shall, to the exclusion of such officer or authority, be performed and exercised by any other lawfully appointed or constituted officer or authority specified in the notification, whether such other officer or authority shall have been appointed or constituted under this Act or the rules made thereunder or under any other law for the time being in force or the rules made under such other law, or (c) require the Board or any other officer to perform the duties and exercise the powers imposed and conferred by this Act or the rules made thereunder on the Commissioner the Settlement Commissioner or the Director of Lands Records, or (d) authorise any authority or officer lawfully constituted or appointed to delegate its or his powers under this Act or under any other law for the time being in force, except the power to make rules under this Act or under such other law to any other authority of officer constituted or appointed under this Act or the rules made thereunder or under any other law for the time being in force or the rules made under such other law. " Section 261 (2) XI-A) of the Act runs as under: - (XI-A) prescribing the manner in which permission under section 90-A for conversion of agricultural land into non agricultural laud shall be applied for; the officer or authority to whom such application shall be given; the particulars to be given in such application; the manner in which enquiry is to be made, the terms and conditions on which the permission may be given; the rate and manner of levy of urban assessment; the rate and manner of levy of premium to be charged by the State Government on such conversion, and the one to be imposed under sub-section (5) of Section 90a. "
(3.) IN exercise of the powers conferred by the above quoted provisions of the Act, the State Government empowered Authorised Officers as defined in Rule 2 (a) of the Rules to pass orders for conversion of agricultural land for residential and commercial purposes. The Authorised Officer has been defined as under: - "2 (a) "authorised Officer" means the Collector of the Revenue District having jurisdiction or any other Officer specially empowered by the Government in this behalf by notification published in the official gazette. " It is well settled law that Rules cannot travel beyond the scope of the Act under which they are framed. The State Government may empower only officers appointed under the Act. An Officer of the Government not referred to in the Act cannot be authorised in this behalf. The interpretation which the learned counsel for the appellant wanted to put would be inconsistent with the provisions of the Rules. If such an interpretation is put to the definition of 'authorised Officer' it would be ultra vires the Act. By notification No. F. 6 (87)/4/81/57 dated December 26, 1981 issued in exercise of the powers conferred by Rule 2 (a) of the Rules, the State Government has empowered Sub Divisional Officers (Land Conversion) within their respective jurisdiction to be Authorised Officers if the market value of the land does not exceed Rs. 10,000/- and the Additional Collector (Land Conversion) in othpr cases. Section 75 of the Act runs as under: - "75. First Appeals - (1) Save when otherwise provided in this Act, a first appeal shall lie- (a) to the Collector from an original order passed by a Tehsildar in matters not connected with settlement or land records, (b) to the revenue appellate authority from an original order passed by an Assistant Collector or a Sub-Divisional Officer or a Collector in matters not connected with settlement, (c) to the Settlement Officer from an original order passed by a revenue court or officer subordinate to him, (d) to the Land Records Officer from an original order passed by a revenue court or Officer sub-ordinate to him, (e) to the Settlement Commissioner from an original order passed by a Settlement Officer or by a Collector in matters connected with Settlement, (f) to the Director of Land Records from an original order passed by a land Records Officer in matters connected with land records, and (g) to the Board from an original order passed by the Commissioner of the Additional Commissioner, the Revenue Appellate Authority, the Settlement Commissioner. " It is clear from clause (b) that an appeal is provided to the Revenue Appellate Authority from an original order passed by a Sub-Divisional Officer in matters not connected with settlement. The stay order dated February 24,1990 (Annexure 5) and final order dated May 16, 1990 ( Annexure 6) of the Revenue Appellate Authority, Jodhpur show that the conversion order was passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Pali. Appeal against the said order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Pali was perfectly maintainable before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Jodhpur under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 75 of the Act as the impugned order was not admittedly connected with settlement. The learned Single Judge was perfectly justified to hold that the appeal was maintainable before the Revenue Appellate Authority. Rule 20 of the Rules was not necessary in view of Section 82 (4) of the Act providing for reference to the State Government/board of Revenue. Realising this, it was deleted w. e. f. March 26, 1987. Thus there is no force in the appeal. ;