ORDER R.S. Shukla, Member The applicant is an ex-Jagirdar and his application for allotment of some unoccupied land in one of his Jagir villages was rejected by the Collector as also by the Commissioner, in first appeal, on the ground that, while the applicant applied for the land in question in the year 1957, one Chittarsingh and one Co-operative Society had applied for the game as early as 1954 and that the letters' applications were under consideration. It has been further stated in the orders of the lower Courts that since according to rule 7(3) framed u/s 62 and the rules u/s 101(2) of the M.B. Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, priority has to be given to registered Co-operative Societies, the applicant was not entitled for the allotment asked for. It is apparent that both the learned Collector and the Commissioner misled themselves by thinking that section 62 or section 101 of the Tenancy Act are applicable in this case. The provisions of the M.B. Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, so far as the erstwhile Jagir land is concerned, apply subject to the provisions of the M.B. Abolition of Jagirs Act (see section 40 of the Abolition of Jagirs Act). As such the provisions of section 27 of the Abolition of Jagirs Act would supersede any provisions to the contrary in the M.B. Land Revenue and Tenancy Act. Section 27 reads as follows:- If a Jagirdar whose Jagir land is resumed u/s 3 does not cultivate any land personally in which he may acquire the rights of a Pucca tenant u/s 10, he may be granted suitable land on lease in any neighbouring village according to the rules made by the Government in this behalf. (underlined by me) Government have, subsequently, framed rules u/s 27 which have been published under Notification No. 70/28/49/56 in the Gazette dated 1st March 1957, Chapter 4, page 101. The allotment of land to a Jagirdar u/s 27 of the Abolition of Jagira Act has, therefore, to be made in accordance with the aforesaid rule u/s 27, Abolition of Jagirs Act and not in accordance with either the rules framed u/s 62 or section 101 of the M.B. Land Revenue and Tenancy Act. The allotment of land to a Jagirdar u/s 27 of the Abolition of Jagira Act has, therefore, to be made in accordance with the aforesaid rule u/s 27, Abolition of Jagirs Act and not in accordance with either the rules framed u/s 62 or section 101 of the M.B. Land Revenue and Tenancy Act. It is also wrong on the part of the Commissioner to say that under rule 7(3) of section 62, M.B. Land Revenue and Tenancy Act preference has to be given to a registered Co-operative Society. It is surprising, that the learned Commissioner should have failed to notice that under rule 7(3) preference has to be given, not to every registered Co-operative Society, but to a society formed by the Adiwasis or the Backward classes. In the instant case, the society in question is not one either of the Adiwasis or the Backward classes. It is, therefore, clear that the Courts below committed an error of law in rejecting applicant's case on the grounds mentioned in their respective order. However, the applicant's application must fail because section 27 of the Abolition of Jagirs Act and the rules made thereunder, on which he has built his case, go against him. Section 27 lays down that an ex-Jagirdar may be granted suitable land "in a neighbouring village". The word 'neighbouring' is significant. In the rules framed u/s 27 it is again laid down very clearly that- The land for which the applicant has at present applied lies, according to his own showing, in one of the villages of his erstwhile Jagir. If section 27 and rules thereunder have to be followed, as they must be, he cannot get the desired land. It is not for this Court or any other Court to question the wisdom of the Legislature in using the word 'neighbouring' in section 27. The learned counsel for the applicant reluctantly conceded that section 27 and the connected rules, as they stand, go against his claim and he must apply afresh for such land as may be made available to him in a neighbouring village. The learned counsel wanted me to invite the attention of the Collector to the provisions of rule 6 made u/s 27 ibid which lays down that in case an allotment application of a Jagirdar is not granted, further time may be given to him to apply for Borne other land. The learned counsel wanted me to invite the attention of the Collector to the provisions of rule 6 made u/s 27 ibid which lays down that in case an allotment application of a Jagirdar is not granted, further time may be given to him to apply for Borne other land. I do not think it necessary to direct the Collector to extend the time because there is no limitation for making such application. It is open to the applicant to approach the competent authorities once again and apply for a suitable land. For reasons given above, no relief can be given to the applicant. Application dismissed summarily. Final Result : Dismissed