R.S. Chauhan, J. - (1.) The petitioner has challenged the order dated 04.07.2005, passed by the Board of Revenue ('the Board' for short), whereby the Board has quashed the order dated 25.10.1997 passed by the Collector, Bhilwara and has remanded the case back to the Collector for reviewing his earlier orders after issuing notice. At the first blush, no illegality appears on the face of the order. However, on a deeper examination of the order, a legal issue emerges, namely whether the Collector has the power to re -review the order by which he had already reviewed his earlier order?
(2.) The legal issue arises under the following circumstances as under: The petitioner is a company, registered under the Companies Act, 1956. It has number of industries and establishments throughout Rajasthan. The petitioner company is the owner and is in possession of land falling in Khasra Nos.3402, 3403, 3411, 3412, 3413, 3403 min. 3361/2k, 3357/3k, 3402/3, 3468/2k, 3402/2, 3368/1 and 3367/2k in total admeasuring about 13 rakbas and 18 bigha and 15 biswa situated at District Bhilwara. In the year 1988 the petitioner company applied for conversion of agricultural land into non agricultural land for setting up an industry/factory. The said application was forwarded to the State Government for approval -cum -permission under the provisions of Rajasthan Land : Revenue (Conversion of Agricultural into Non Agricultural Land) Rules, 1961 ('Rules of 1961' for short). Vide order dated 29.11.1989, the State Government granted permission for conversion of aforesaid agricultural land into Non -agricultural purposes. While granting said permission, the State Government considered the construction already done by the petitioner and levied a fine equivalent to five times of the prevalent highest market price of land in the neighbourhood land. Consequently, the Collector, vide order dated 11.12.1989, directed the petitioner to deposit Rs.1,31,250/ -, as fine under Rule 7 of Rules of 1961. The petitioner company deposited the said amount. Therefore, vide order dated 05.01.1990, the Government issued a lease -deed in favour of the petitioner company for setting up of industry/factory on the said land. However, after lapse of two years, upon certain audit objections, the Collector issued two notices dated 22.08.1992 and 12.11.1992. Through these notices, the Collector directed the petitioner company to pay Rs.17,54,878.15. The petitioner raised a number of objections before the Collector. However, vide order dated 08.02.1993, the Collector dismissed the objections. In turn, he evaluated the total amount of fine as Rs.2,62,500/ -. Since Rs.1,31,250/ - were already deposited by the petitioner on earlier occasion, the Collector directed the petitioner to deposit the remaining amount of Rs.1,31,250/ -. Consequently, the petitioner deposited the said amount under protest. Simultaneously, the petitioner challenged the order dated 08.02.1993 before the Revenue Appellate Authority ('RAA' for short). Vide order dated 17.09.1994, RAA dismissed the appeal of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a second appeal before the Board. However, vide order dated 30.06.1997, the Board dismissed petitioner's second appeal. The petitioner did not challenge the said order any further. More importantly, the State has never challenged the order dated 08.02.1993, passed by the Collector. Thus, with the dismissal of second appeal by the Board, the Collector's order dated 08.02.1993 had achieved finality.
(3.) However, while petitioner's second appeal was pending before the Board, surprisingly the Collector issued another notice dated 15.11.1994. According to the said notice, the Collector directed the petitioner to deposit Rs.17,54,878.15. However, as the petitioner had already deposited Rs.2,65,500/ -, it was directed to deposit the remaining amount of Rs.14,92,378/ -. The petitioner immediately raised objections before the Collector. However, vide order dated 25.10.1997, the Collector dismissed the objections and affirmed the order dated 15.11.1994. Since the petitioner was aggrieved by the order dated 25.10.1997, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Board. The Board, vide order dated 04.07.2005, quashed the order dated 25.10.1997, but remanded the case back to the Collector. The Board was of the option that the impugned order dated 25.10.1997 was a non -speaking order. Therefore, it directed the Collector to issue a fresh notice to the petitioner and to re -assess the amount of penalty which could be imposed on the petitioner. Since the petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 04.07.2005, it has preferred the present petition before this Court.;