A. K. MATHUR, J. - (1.) THE petitioner by this writ petition has challenged the orders Exs. 2, 3 and 4 and it has further been prayed that the respondent may be restrained from giving effect to the order Ex. 5.
(2.) TOTAL 24 bighas of land in Chak 1 PGM, murabba No. 270/456 was granted to the petitioner as a temporary cultivation lease holder. Out of this land 14-1/2 bighas was command land and 9-1/2 bighas was uncommand land On 12. 7. 1984 permanent allotment of this land was made in favour of the petitioner. Non-ptitioner No. 3 by his order dated 5. 12. 1981 cancelled the said permanent allotment. The permanent allotment of the petitioner was cancelled on the ground that the petitioner's father had 50 bighas of khatedari land in Chak 5 PTD which the petitioner has notional share which he did not disclose in the application for permanent allotment The petitioner obtained permanent allotment by not correctly disclosing she facts. Aggrieved against this the petitioner preferred a revision petition which was dismissed on 25. 3. 1983 vide Ex. 4. This revision petition was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner has not filed appeal against the orders Ex. 1 and Ex. 2 as provided under Rule 23 (1) of the Rajasthan Colonisation (Allotment and Sale of Government land in the Rajasthan Canal Colony Area) Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules ). After the judgment Ex- 4 the petitioner is said to have moved an application before the Government. On 4. 4. 1985 respondent Dheersingh came with the Patwari for taking possession of the land and at that time the petitioner came to know that the land in question was allotted to one Dheersingh. The petitioner persuaded the remedy before the competent forum against the said allotment. This writ petition is directed against the order of the Board of Revenue whereby the Board of Revenue has taken the view that the petitioner has directly approached the Board of Revenue before approaching the appellate authority as regular appeal lies before the Colonisation Commissioner, Therefore the Board of Revenue dismissed the revision petition by order Ex. 4 dated 25,3. 1983. Against this order, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Board has a revi-sional power and even if the petitioner has not filed the appeal still the Board of Revenue which has a supervisory jurisdiction can always interfere in the matter in the interest of justice. In this connection, learned counsel has invited my attention to Hari Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan (l ). It is true that the Board could have exercised the jurisdiction. But I do not find any apparent error in the order of the Board of Revenue as the petitioner has an alternative remedy of appeal before the Colonisation Commissioner. Therefore, the Board of Revenue declined to exercise its revi-sional jurisdiction. This approach of the Board of Revenue does not appear to be erroneous on the face of it. The Board of Revenue could have exercised its revisional jurisdiction as there is no fatter on the discretion of the Board of Revenue. But once the Board of Revenue has taken the view that it decline to exercise its discretionary power in view of the fact that the petitioner has failed to avail the statutory remedy, no illegality can be found with the order of the Board of Revenue. In the result, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is dismissed.
(3.) THE parties are left to bear their own costs. .;