The powers vested by sec. 28 in the Settlement Commissioner are discretionary and a reference to the Board is necessary only when he is of the opinion that the order of the lower court should be varied, cancelled or reversed. Provisions of sec. 28 of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction Act, 1951) are not meant to be invoked in order to give a back door relief to a party who has failed to avail of the statutory provisions of appeal within time given by law. Moolchand Chandani, for Applicant This is an application in revision against an order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner, Rajasthan dated 14.12.53 whereby he refused to refer the case to this Board under sec. 28 of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act, 1951. 2. Put briefly the facts of the case are that in village Somasar, Tehsil Desuri, Khasra Numbers 128 to 134 were recorded in the name of Dalla Ram and Hansa Ram and a parcha Was issued in their name by the Settlement Department. The applicant Dewa objected to this and desired that the parcha be issued in his favour. His application was however, dismissed by the A. R. O. on 26th April, 1953. Against this order the applicant Dewa filed an appeal before the Settlement offset, Pali, who by his order dated 14th July, 1953 dismissed it as barred by limitation Dewa applicant then made an application under sec. 28 of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts Procedure and Jurisdiction Act, 1951, to the Additional Settlement Commissioner which was also dismissed by him as stated above. Hence this revision before the Board. 3. The case was heard ex parte as the opposite party did not put in appearance despite notice. 4. The main grounds of revision urged before me are that the Additional Settlement Commissioner had acted wrongly in not making a reference to the Revenue Courts Procedure and Jurisdiction Act and had also wrongly dismissed his application dated 5-l1-53 in which he had prayed that it may be treated as an appeal. It has also been argued that the Additional Commissioner was wrong in holding that the lower-court had not committed any irregularity to justify a reference under sec. 28 of the Procedure and Jurisdiction Act. 5. I have considered these pleas of the applicant. As regards the first contention, sec. It has also been argued that the Additional Commissioner was wrong in holding that the lower-court had not committed any irregularity to justify a reference under sec. 28 of the Procedure and Jurisdiction Act. 5. I have considered these pleas of the applicant. As regards the first contention, sec. 28 of Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act, 1951 reads as follows:— "The Commissioner, the Collector, or the Settlement Commissioner may call for and examine the record of any case or proceedings decided by or pending before any revenue court subordinate to him for the purposes of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of the order passed and as to regularity of proceedings, and, if he is of opinion that the order passed or the proceeding taken by such court should be varied, cancelled or reversed, he shall refer the case with his opinion thereon for the orders of the Board and the Board shall thereupon, pass such orders as it thinks fit ; Provided that the power conferred by this section shall not be exercised in respect of suits or proceedings fallings within the purview of sec. 36." 6. It is clear from the wordings of this section that the powers vested by it in the Settlement Commissioner are discretionary and a reference to the Board is necessary only when he is of the opinion that the order of the lower-court should be varied, cancelled or reversed. In this case, the Additional Settlement Commissioner has given cogent reasons for holding that it was not a fit case for reference to the Board and the counsel for the applicant has failed to show any ground against the exercise of such direction. As regards the other contention, suffice it to say that it was certainly open to the applicant to file an appeal against the decision of the Settlement officer who had dismissed his appeal as time-barred but he failed to do so and his request that his application for a reference to the Board may be treated as an appeal, which was given at a late stage when he could not make out any case for reference was properly dismissed by the lower appellate court. It has been had by this Board in another case that provision of sec. It has been had by this Board in another case that provision of sec. 29 of the Rajasthan Revenue (Courts, Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act 1951 are not meant to be invoked in order to give a backdoor relief to a party who has failed to avail of the statutory provisions of appeal within time given by law. This is a similar case in which the applicant had failed to file an appeal within limitation and therefore sought to invoke the assistance of the Additional Settlement Commissioner to have the proceedings of the lower-court set aside under sec. 28 of the Rajasthan Procedure and Jurisdiction Act, 1951. 7. In the result I see no reason to interfere with the findings of the lower-court. The revision is hereby rejected.