DWARKA PRASAD, J. - (1.) IN this writ petition, the question which has been canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court is that the Board of Revenue was not justified in rejecting the revision petition filed by the petitioner before it under Section 83 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on the ground that it was not maintainable.
(2.) I may briefly state the facts leading to the filing of this writ petition. Hanumansingh, petitioner was allotted 20 bighas of agricultural land, comprised in sqare No. 27 in Chak No. 91 C. B. , on November 3,1959 under the provisions of the Rajasthan Colonization (Gang Canal Lands Parmanent Allotment and Sale) Rules, 1956. After some time the petitioner Hanumansingh mortgaged the land in question with Narainsingh on March 12, 1965 for a sum of Rs. 1,500/-by means of a registered mortgage deed. It may be mentioned here that the aforesaid land was allotted to the petitioner on account of his being as ex-member of the armed forces. The mortgage was made by Hanumansingh in favour of Narainsingh with the stipulation that until the mortgagor repaid the sum of Rs. 1,500/- the land in dispute shall remain in possession of the mortgagee and that the interest on the aforesaid mortgage amount shall be set off against the income received by the mortgage from the land in dispute. The Collector, Sri Ganganagar on receiving information about the aforesaid mortgage issued a notice to the allottee Hanumansingh to show cause why action should not be taken for the resumption of the land in question. As the petitioner did not care to appear inspite of service of notice, the Collector, Sri Ganganagar by his order dated May 11, 1967 cancelled the allotment of the land in question in favour of Hanumansingh and directed that the said land be resumed in favour of the Government. The Collector held that the allotment was made to Hanuman Singh on the basis that he was an ex-military personnel and with a view to rehabilitate him and that the said allotment was made subject to the condition that the allottee shall not sell or transfer or otherwise alienate the land in question, except with the permission of the Collector, for a period of 16 years from the date of allotment. It was also held that the petitioner did not obtain the Collector's permission for effecting a transfer and that the mortgage made by him was a clear contravention of the terms and conditions subject to which the allotment of land was made to him. The petitioner preferred a revision petition before the Board of Revenue against the aforesaid order passed by the Collector, Sri Ganganagar dated May 11, 1967. The Board took the view that an appeal lay against the aforesaid order passed by the Collector, Sri Ganganagar to the Colonization Commissioner, exercising the powers of the Revenue Appellate Authority, but as no appeal was preferred by the petitioner and so the revision petition was filed before the Board of Revenue without exhausting the remedy of appeal was not maintainable. In these circumstances, the Board of Revenue held that the revision petition was incompetent and dismissed the same, Section 83 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, which authorises the filing of a revision petition runs as under:- "83. Powers of Government to call for records and revise orders: The State Government may call for the record of any non judicial proceedings not connected with settlement held by any officer subordinate to it and may pass thereon such orders as it thinks fit. " The power of the State Government under Section 83 to hear revision petitions in non-judicial matters has been delegated to the Board of Revenue by a notification issued by the State Government on April 17, 1967. It is no doubt true that a first appeal lay under Section 75 of the Act, from the original order passed by the Collector to the Revenue Appellate Authority, in non judicial matters not connected with settlement. But the question which arises in this case is whether the revision petition filed before the Board of Revenue under Section 83, without exhausting the remedy of appeal provided in Section 75, was rightly held to be incompetent or not maintainable by the Board of Revenue ? The matter has already been considered in two Bench decisions of this Court. In Gordhan vs. State of Rajasthan (1), a revision petition was filed before the State Government against an order in respect of allotment of land, although an appeal could have been filed against the said order before the Collector. The revision petition was allowed by the State Government and the allotment was cancelled. The order passed by the State Government was challenged before this Court on the ground that the State Government was not competent to entertain the revision petition under Section 83 of the Act because an appeal lay to the Collector but was not filed. This Court rejected the aforesaid contention and held that the revision petition was not incompetent and observed as under:- "it is true that no appeal was filed by any party within the prescribed period against the order of allotment, but this, to our mind, will not affect the jurisdiction of the Government to deal with the matter. Sec. 83 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act provides that "the State Government may call for the record of any non-judicial proceeding not connected with settlement held by any officer subordinate to it, and may pass thereon such orders as it thinks fit. The matter relating to allotment of land for agricultural purposes is nothing but a non-judicial proceeding and as the same is not connected with settlement the State Government will be competent to call for the record of such proceedings and pass in relation thereto such orders as it thought fit. In the circumstances, we find no substance in the contention that the Government had no jurisdiction to revise the orders of allotment. "
(3.) THE same view was also expressed by another bench of this Court in Hari Singh vs. State of Rajasthan (2) wherein it was observed as under:- "we further hold that this jurisdiction would be available to the Govern-ment in an appropriate case notwithstanding the consideration that the respondents might or might not have attacked the order by which they were aggrieved by an appeal within the prescribed time. THE party's failure to prefer an appeal, assuming that such an appeal could be filed, may conclude his rights but that would not conclude the exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction of the revisional authority in a proper case. " It may be observed that under section 83 the State Government and its delegate the Board of Revenue enjoyed wide supervisory powers over the subordinate Revenue Courts and officers and that power of superintendence or supervisory jurisdiction could not be taken away on the ground that an appeal to a subordinate court or authority was not filed. Sec. 83 confers powers on the Board of Rvenue to call for the record of any case of non-judicial nature and pass any order in regard thereto, as it may consider appropriate. It would not be proper to conclude that the Board of Revenue was precluded from exercising supervisory authority or revisional jurisdiction in a proper case, merely on the ground of failure of the party concerned to prefer an appeal under Section 75 of the Act. The Board's jurisdiction under Section 83 is not contingent upon the litigant exhausting all legal remedies. In the present case the Board of Revenue observed as under :- "according to the present hierarchy of the Colonization departments, the order of the Deputy Colonization Commissioner or Collector stands appeal-able to the Colonization Commissioner and, thereafter only revision could be filed in accordance with Section 5 of the Rajasthan Colonization Act, 1954 read with the provisions of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 and the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. This present revision has, therefore, been incorrectly filed before the Board without exhausting the remedy of appeal which could be instituted before the Colonization Commissioner. " I am unable to agree with the view taken by the Board of Revenue. The two bench decisions referred to above by me further support the view taken by me. The Board has undoubtedly a discretion to entertain or refuse to entertain a revision petition filed before it, without exhausting the remedy of appeal before a subordinate court or authority. But to say that in a particular case the Board may decline to exercise its jurisdiction is different from saying that the Board of Revenue has no jurisdiction at all to entertain a revision petition under Section 83 of the Act, without exhausting the remedy of appeal provided in the Act. It is undoubtedly correct that the remedy provided under Section 83 of the Act is a discretionary power of the Board of Revenue and the Board may exercise its jurisdiction in a proper case and may refuse to interfere by way of revision with an order, against which the party seeking the Board's interference has another remedy available to him by way of appeal, but has not resorted to it. However, in the present case the Board of Revenue refused to entertain the revision petition filed before it on the ground that it has no jurisdiction to hear the revision petition, as in the opinion of the Board the revision petition was incorrectly filed and was not maintainable. ;