This purports to be an appeal filed against two orders one of the Commissioner, Bikaner dated 3.11.59 and the other that of the Collector, Ganganagar dated 24.12.59. We have heard the counsel for the parties and gone through the record carefully. We have very carefully perused both the orders questioned before us. The order of the Commissioner dated 3.11.59 is purely an administrative order. It is a brief order running in about 3 lines and all that it does is to inform the Collector that the area which has been reserved had been done upon his own recommendation and it was not possible to cancel it now. The Collector therefore was directed to act in accordance with the orders passed already. This order cannot be said to have been passed in any judicial capacity or under any provision of law and we have no hesitation in holding that it is neither appealable nor revisable. The next difficulty in the case is to find any connection between the Commissioners order dated 3.11.59 and that of the Collector dated 24.12.59. In the first instance the doctrine of merger does not apply to administrative orders and therefore it could not be said that the order of the Collector merged in that of the Commissioner dated 3.11.59. Even if we were to assume that there was a possibility of the doctrine of merger being extended to the orders under consideration the principle could not be applied in this case for the simple reason that the Collectors order comes after the order of the Commissioner and even at the risk of repetition we must point out that the order of the Commissioner dated 3.11.59 does not govern the Collectors order dated 24.12.59. Taking the order of the Collector independently its perusal clearly shows that the allotment made therein was under rule 3 of the Rajasthan Colonisation (Gang Canal Lands Permanent Allotment)Rules, 1956. Rule 6 of the aforesaid rules authorises the Collector to make such allotment. Rule 10 of the said rules provides for an appeal by a person aggrieved by an order of the Collector made under Rule 6 and the appeal lies to the Commissioner whose order was to be final. In this case therefore if the appellants were aggrieved by this order they should have gone in appeal to the Commissioner and should have challenged it on its own merits. In this case therefore if the appellants were aggrieved by this order they should have gone in appeal to the Commissioner and should have challenged it on its own merits. There was no occasion for seeking to connect it with the Commissioners order dated 3.11.59 and through that means bring the matter before the Board. It was urged by the counsel for the appellants before us that if the appeal did not lie before the Board the Board should interfere in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under the general revenue laws i.e. Rajasthan Land Revenue Act or Rajasthan Tenancy Act which have been made applicable to areas declared as colonies under the Colonisation Act. We are afraid we cannot subscribe to this view. The scheme of appeals and revisions is provided in the Rajasthan Colonisation (Gang Canal Lands Permanent Allotment) Rules, 1956 and since there is no provision for revision we do not think it would be correct for us to extend our revisional jurisdiction conferred upon us in the Land Revenue Act or the Rajasthan Tenancy Act to allotment orders made under the aforesaid rules. In the result we hold that both the orders which are sought to be questioned before us are neither revisable by us nor an appeal from them lies to us and we have no manner of jurisdiction to entertain them. Since the applicants had come before this court in the shape of an appeal their memorandum of appeal shall be returned to them for presenting before the Court of competent jurisdiction.