By the Court—The reference made by the Divisional Bench in this case is that according to the decision given by the Full Bench in Badami vs. Sohanlal no review should be entertained by the Board in Malmandi cases of the covenanting Bikaner State but the recent decision given by the High Court of Judicature, Rajasthan, in a Rajasthan Protection of Tenants Ordinance case Harji vs. Revenue Board (1952 R.L.W. 338) along with other points raised by the learned counsel for the parties, require in the interest of justice and fairness that this question may be reconsidered. 2. Similar reference has been made in case No. 2 of Smt. 2008 Asu-ram vs. Bapu Singh and case No. 4 of Smt. 2008-09 Ridh Koran and Birdhichand vs. Gokul Chand and others. Hence all these cases are being heard together. 3. The counsel for the parties in these cases were heard. In Badami vs. Sohanlal the former Full Bench of the Board held that it was a case of residential site within the Municipal area to which the Bikaner Municipal Act of 1923 applied and that the Gazette Notification of February 20, 1943 had been amended under the Municipal laws, and as there was no provision for review in the Municipal Act or in those Rules, therefore no review would lie in such cases. But a perusal of the Government Notification No. 7 dated 20.2.43 will show that this Notification for the sale of residential sites had been issued by the office of the Revenue Minister and there was no mention that it had been made and promulgated under the rule making powers given by the Municipal Act. Therefore this was a wrong statement of law made by one of the parties before the Full Bench. Similarly, cases have been cited in which the former Bikaner State and Rajasthan Board of Revenue reviewed its orders in such cases. Therefore in the face of both these points there is little justification in refusing to hear reviews. Further, when taking into consideration the decision recently given by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan in Harji vs. Revenue Board for Rajasthan (1952 RLW 338) on 1.2.1952, we arrive at same conclusion. The Honble Judges have observed that the Board of Revenue performs its duties in accordance with certain rules applicable to it. Further, when taking into consideration the decision recently given by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan in Harji vs. Revenue Board for Rajasthan (1952 RLW 338) on 1.2.1952, we arrive at same conclusion. The Honble Judges have observed that the Board of Revenue performs its duties in accordance with certain rules applicable to it. These rules are to be followed by the Board even though no mention in that behalf is made in the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance. For instance, the rules regarding the disposal of Boards business by a single member or by a Division Bench or Full Bench of the Board have to be followed by, even though in the said Ordinance nothing has been provided in this respect. Similarly the Board would be justified in exercising its own jurisdiction in such cases, which the Board possesses under the authority of law. It has been provided by sec. 24 of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act, 1951 that the Board can on its own motion or on the application of a party to a suit or other proceedings may review and may rescind alter or confirm any decree or order made by it or by any of its Members. The Revenue Board, therefore, can exercise its powers under sec. 24 of cases arising under the Protection of Tenants Ordinance and review its own decisions. 4. The same principle applies in cases of Malmandi which the Board has the jurisdiction to entertain. 5. We, therefore, hold that the Board has the power to review its decisions in Malmandi cases and the Bench concerned may be replied accordingly and the cases be returned for final disposal. This disposes all the three cases referred to above.