Ajay Rastogi, J.@mdashInstant petition has been filed against order dt.04/01/2010 (Ann.5) passed by Board of Revenue, Ajmer whereby while accepting appeal preferred by respondent-Municipality Kotputli (Jaipur), matter has been remitted back to the Additional Collector for examining the issues afresh in accordance with law.
2. Counsel submits that once suit for declaration & permanent injunction filed by predecessor in title of petitioners has been decreed in their favour vide judgment dt. 29/12/1962, proceedings initiated against him on submission of application by Tehsildar (Land Records) u/s 14(4) of Rajasthan Land Revenue (allotment of Land for Agricultural Purposes) Rules, 1970 ("Allotment Rules, 1970"), which was accepted by Additional Collector, Kotputli vide order dt.31/12/2003, are wholly without jurisdiction; as such the Board of Revenue has committed a patent illegality in remanding the matter back to the original authority having no jurisdiction.
3. Counsel further submits that the Board even in para 12 of order impugned has recorded its own observation in regard to scope of R.14 (4) of Allotment Rules, 1970; as such there was no justification for the Board to have remitted the matter back to the original authority.
4. In the opinion of this Court, submission made (supra) is without substance for the reason that and if paras 10 & 11 of the order impugned are read in totality, the Board has only appreciate the material on record and observed in regard to the effect of suit decreed in favour of predecessor in title vide judgment dt.29/12/1962 and in para 11 has observed that if the very allotment is contrary to the law, action could be initiated. However, since there was no material available before the Board, in the facts of instant case, the Board did not consider it appropriate to examine and remitted the matter back to the original authority after setting aside both the orders passed by the Additional Collector and the Revenue Appellate Authority.
5. In the instant case, application filed by Tehsildar (Land Records) U/r 14(4) of Allotment Rules, 1970 was allowed vide order dt.31/12/2003 against which petitioners preferred appeal before Revenue Appellate Authority, which was accepted vide order dt.27/06/2006 and the order of Additional Collector was set aside. However, Board of Revnue while setting aside both the orders has remitted the matter back to the original authority to examine the issue afresh in accordance with law. Taking note of what has been observed while examining rival contention of the parties as referred to in paras 10 & 11 of the order impugned, this Court does not find any manifest error being committed while remitting the matter to the original authority.
6. As regards submission made by Counsel that the authority is not having jurisdiction U/r 14(4) of Allotment Rules, 1970, in the light of decree being passed in favour of predecessor in title of petitioners, suffice it to say that it would always be open for the petitioners to submit in this regared before the authority to whom matter has been remitted by Board of Revenue. Since there is no finding being recorded under order impugned in instant case, this Court is not inclined to entertain the petition.
7. Consequently, writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
