SHETHNA, J. - (1.) AS many as on three grounds mentioned in the order dated 23. 12. 1997 (Annex. 7) the allotment of the land in favour of the petitioner was cancelled by the Collector in exercise of his suo moto powers under Rule 22 (3) of the Rules. These three grounds are :- ********
(2.) THE same was challenged by the petitioner in revision before the Board of Revenue which was also dismissed on 29. 8. 98 (Annexure 8) mainly on the first ground. Learned counsel Shri Singh for the petitioner tried to challenge the impugned orders at Annex. 7 and 8 passed by the Collector and Board of Revenue respectively in this petition on the grounds that out of three grounds, atleast two grounds are wholly not sustainable. Regarding ground (1) that the order sheets of the allotment proceedings dated 13. 12. 88, 26. 12. 88 and 7. 1. 89 does not bear the signatures of the allotment authority, Mr. Singh submits that for the fault of the Allotting Authority in not signing those proceedings, the petitioner should not be made to suffer. He submitted that the impugned ordersheets dated 31. 12. 88 by which the allotment was ordered to be made to the petitioner was signed by the Allotting Authority and that has to be taken as the allotment order. This submission of Mr. Singh cannot be accepted. It is only a part of the order-sheet which was stated to have been signed by the Allotting Authority. It is very much in doubt whether that order-sheet was signed by the Allotting Authority on 31. 12. 88 or not. If the previous order-sheets dated 13. 12. 88 and 26. 12. 88 and later order-sheet dated 7. 1. 89 does not bear the signatures of the Allotting Authority, then there was nothing wrong on the part of the Collector in cancelling the allotment made in favour of the petitioner in exercise of its suo moto powers. It must be stated that this Court is not sitting in appeal over the decision of the Collector. This Court is considering the order of the Collector at Annex. 7 which has been confirmed by the Board of Revenue at Annex. 8 in revision. This is a petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. Unless and until it is pointed out that there is a manifest error committed by the Court below, then only this Court would interfere with the orders passed by the Subordinate courts, otherwise not. Going through the impugned orders passed by the Collector and the Board of Revenue, it cannot be said that the Courts below have committed any error either of facts or law which requires to be corrected by this Court in its writ jurisdiction. Hence this petition is rejected. .;