VERMA, J. - (1.) THE petitioners are legal representatives of Late Shri Shyam Lal. It is stated that they were in possession of some kuccha and pucca houses along with an open 'bara' behind the house in village Jaisingh pura-khor, Tehsil and District Jaipur. Shyam Lal was convicted for murder and remained in jail and after completing the punishment when he came out of jail, 'it is stated that the 'bara' in possession of Shyam Lal had been illegally auctioned in favour of non-petitioner no. 5. THE auction was held by the Gram Panchayat respondent No. 4. THE 'bara' was sold on 8. 9. 1974. Aggrieved against the said sale by the Gram Panchayat, Late Shri Shyam Lal had filed a revision petition before the Collector under Rule 272 of the Gram Panchayat (General) Rules, 1961. THE Additional Collector, 1, Jaipur vide its order dated 5. 9. 1980 had cancelled the auction in favour of respondent No. 5 Aside order Annexure-1. Non-petitioner No. 5 Kalyan Sahai filed a second revision petition before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Jaipur. THE Revenue Appellate Authority set-aside the order of the Additional Collector, vide judgment dated 31. 7. i987, copy of which is attached as Annexure 2. Being aggrieved, said Shri Shyam Lal filed a revision petition before the Board of Revenue who dismissed the same vide order Annexure-III on 30. 4. 1990. Being aggrieved against the orders passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority and the Board of Revenue, the petitioner has filed the present writ; petition.
(2.) IT is stated by the petitioner that the orders passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority wore illegal and without jurisdiction for the reason that powers under Section 27 (A) r/w Rule 272 were exercisable by the Additional Collector only and not by the RAA and, therefore, the Board of Revenue had not exercised the jurisdiction in accordance with law. IT is further submitted that the Board of Revenue had not considered the legal point involved in the revision petition. Before the Revenue Appellate Authority and against the order of Additional Collector appeal was filed beyond the period of limitation of 5 years i. e. the order of the Collector dated 5. 9. 1980 was challenged on 21. 12. 1985. IT is further submitted that as a matter of fact the land in question was in possession of the petitioners from the time immemorial i. e. from fore-fathers and no auction could have been held. Vide Annexure-1, the auction proceedings were set-aside by the Additional Collector, Jaipur an the ground that even though the decision to auction the said land was taken by the Gram Panchayat in January 1968, but right upto September 1974, no action had been taken and there were certain types of interpolation in the proceedings of the Panchayat. It was also set-aside on the ground that the ' auction was required to be proved by the SDO under the rules which had not been done so, the auction was bad. The non-petitioner had filed a revision petition before the RAA. The order An-nexure-1 was set-aside by the RAA. The revision petition had been filed before the RAA under Section 27-A and 75 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act r/w Rule 272, being aggrieved the petitioner had filed the revision petition before the Board of Revenue. In regard to the objection taken to the effect that there was no power with the RAA to have invoked powers of revision, the Board of Revenue had mentioned that vide notification dated 19. 10. 1975, the State had delegated powers u/s. 27-A to the RAA and to the Collector and thus the revision was within jurisdiction. The Board of Revenue had come to a finding that the learned Collector and the Revenue Appellate Authority were not functioning as revenue officer under the provisions of the Rajasthan Land Revenue. Act, but they were acting as person designate, therefore, had held that the Board had no revisional power even if the order passed by the RAA was without jurisdiction and the Board of Revenue not entitled to correct such jurisdiction under the revisional powers. Counsel for the petitioner relies on the decision of this court in the case of Giriraj & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (1), Mala vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (2) and Hari Singh vs. State & Ors. (3) to the effect that once the powers of revision has been exercised by the Collector, same cannot be set-aside b, the RAA by exercising jurisdiction under the revisional powers under Section 27 (A) of the Act, as per the notification dated 1. 1. 1962 wherein the RAA had been granted powers in respect of the order passed by the Collector under any provision of the Rajasthan Panchayat (General) Act except the order passed u/s. 27 (A) (1) wherein powers have been delegated to the Collector of the district.
(3.) COUNSEL for the respondent also states that ever since the non-petitioner No. 5 had made construction at the site and 'if any adverse order is passed, the non-petitioner would suffer irreparable loss because of change of the position of the land in question. So far as jurisdiction of RAA is concerned, counsel for the respondents had relied on two notifications dated 19. 10. 1973 and 4. 7. 1995 to the effect that some powers have been delegated to RAA against the orders passed by the Collector u/s. 27-A of the Act. However, no copy of the notification has been placed on record. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, 1 agree with the contention of the petitioner that once the Additional Collector had exercise the powers of Revisional Jurisdiction as per Annexure-1, no second revision could be filed and thus, interference by the RAA by exercising revision power was illegal. In case, the non-petitioner was aggrieved against the order passed in Annexure-1 by the Additional Collector and if no revision or appeal was available, in that situation, the non-petitioner should have availed an other constitutional alternative remedy. Even if some constructions has bee made of the shops on the site, but for the reason that Annexure-1 having been passed against th. . . 3 non-petitioner, the non-petitioner is liable to suffer the consequences as the orders passed by the RAP, were without jurisdiction For the reasons mentioned above, the writ petition is allowed an Annexures-2 and 3 passed by the RAA and Board of Revenue are set-aside. ;