SHETHNA, J. - (1.) ON 14. 10. 79, the respondents No. 3 and 4 submitted an application for grant of patta for the land in question before the Sarpanch of the respondent No. 2 Gram Panchayat (Annex. 1 ). Mauka report was signed by two Panchas and Sarpanch under Rule 258 (2) of Rajasthan Panchayat General Rules, 1961 (for short `the Rules') (Annex. 2) wherein there is a clear reference regarding old possession of the respondents No. 3 and 4. Application for grant of patta submitted by the respondents No. 3 and 4 was granted and the patta issued by the respondent No. 2 Gram Panchayat on 22. 6. 81. Aggrieved of the same, the petitioner challenged that before the Additional Collector in 1995 by way of revision under Rule 272 of the Rules and under Section 97 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (for short `the Act' ). Thus, admittedly, the grant of patta in favour of the respondents No. 3 and 4 was challenged by the present petitioner before the Additional Collector in revision after a gross delay of fourteen years.
(2.) THE above revision petition No. 11/95 filed by the present petitioner against the grant of patta by the respondent No. 2 in favour of the respondents No. 3 and 4, came to be allowed by the Additional Collector by his order dated 29. 8. 95 (Annex. 4 ). Against this order at Annex. 4, the present respondents No. 3 and 4 filed review petition No. 159/95 before the learned Additional Collector who by his order dated 2. 7. 96 (Annex. 5) allowed the review petition and rejected his earlier order dated 29. 8. 95 (Annex. 4) passed in revision petition No. 11/95 and further ordered that the revision petition No. 11/95 is restored to its original number and it will be heard on merits again. This order dated 2. 6. 96 (Annex. 5) passed by the learned Additional Collector allowing the review petition filed by the present respondents No. 3 and 4 has been challenged in this writ petition by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution. Learned counsel Mr. Sharma for the petitioner raised only one technical and pure question of law namely, that the Additional Collector who had reviewed his earlier order passed in revision petition, had no jurisdiction to review his own order in absence of any specific provision for review under the Act or the Rules. In support of his submission, learned counsel Mr. Sharma has strongly relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Patel Narshi Thakershi and others, Appellants vs. Pradyumansinghji, Arjunsinghji, Respondent (1 ). It was a case in which Mr. Mankodi, the then Commissioner of Rajkot, took up the matter for consideration on his own and by his order dated March 29, 1962, set aside the order passed by the Erstwhile Saurashtra Government on October 22, 1956 by taking the view that the Government had no competence to make that order. That order passed by Mr. Mankodi was challenged before the Gujarat High Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution by way of a writ petition and while allowing the said writ petition, the Gujarat High Court held that "mr. Mankodi was not right in his conclusion that the State Government could not have passed the order which it passed on October 22, 1956, under Section 63 (2) of the Act. " This was challenged further before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the question before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was as to whether Mr. Mankodi had competence to quash the order made by the Saurashtra Government on October 22, 1956 or not? The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that Mr. Mankodi was functioning only as the delegate of the State Government. The order passed by Mr. Mankodi, in law amounted to a review of the order made by the Saurashtra Government. In that context, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that "it is well settled that the power to review is not an inherent power. It must be conferred by law either specifically or by necessary implication. No provision in the Act was brought to our notice from which it could be gathered that the Government had power to review its own order. It is obvious that its delegate could not have reviewed its order. " Coming to the facts of the present case, it is clear from the order dated 29. 8. 95 (Annex. 4) passed by the Additional Collector in revision petition No. 11/95 filed by the petitioner that the said revision petition was filed under Rule 272 of the Rules as well as under Section 97 of the Act. The revision petition was filed by the petitioner himself under Rule 272 of the Rules and Section 97 of the Act, therefore, for reviewing the earlier order passed by the Additional Collector, the respondents No. 3 and 4 filed review petition under Section 97 (3) of the Act read with Order 47 and Section 115 C. P. C. and the same was entertained by the learned Additional Collector by overruling the preliminary objection raised by the present petitioner before him about his power of review. The learned Additional Collector has relied upon a circular dated 17. 1. 95 issued by the State Government regarding review and has come to the conclusion that he has power of review and accordingly, he reviewed his decision when he was convinced that the earlier order (Annex. 4) passed by him was obviously wrong on the face of the record. Under Section 97 of the Act, the power of revision and review is vested in the State Government. Thus, in the instant case, there is a clear provision of review under the Act empowering the State Government to review its own orders. The Additional Collector was acting only as an agent/delegate of the State Government while exercising his revisional powers and powers of review. If the State Government had power to review its earlier decision, then certainly its delegate or agent has always power of review his own orders. Thus, when there are clear provisions of review provided under the Act itself, then there is no question of applicability of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Patel Narshi's case (supra ). At the cost of repetition, I must state that in Patel Narshi's case (supra), no provision in the Act was brought to the notice of the Supreme Court from which it could be gathered that the Government had power to review its own order and under those circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that if the Government has no power to review its own order, then obviously, its delegate could not have power of review and it could not have reviewed its order. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any substance or merits in this submission raised by learned counsel Mr. Sharma that the Additional Collector has no powers of review. In fact, the powers of review are there under Section 97 of the Act itself and when the Additional Collector was fully convinced on the facts of the case that he had wrongly passed the earlier order at Annex. 4 then he had no option but to review his own order. Therefore, in my opinion, he has rightly reviewed his earlier order Annex. 4 by impugned order Annex. 5 which does not call for any interference of this Court in its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution.
(3.) BEFORE parting, I must state that the Additional Collector has passed the earlier order in the revision petition and subsequently reviewed the same by his impugned order Annex. 5 in his capacity as the agent/delegate of the State of Rajasthan. It is time and again held that in absence of State of Rajasthan being there as party respondent, no writ of certiorari can be issued when the order passed by its own officers or agents are challenged and questioned in the writ petition, therefore, on this ground also, this petition was required to be dismissed as the State of Rajasthan was not joined as party respondent in this petition. In view of the above discussion, this petition fails and is dismissed. .;