This revision petition has been filed under sec. 84 (wrongly cited as 85) read with sec. 9 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act against the order of the Revenue Appellate Authority, Udaipur, dated 12-5-64, whereby he accepted the appeal against the order of the Collector, Dungarpur, dated 9-9-63. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the Tehsildar Aspur allotted certain agricultural land to Shri Kamalji, non-petitioner. On an application made by Shri Bhemji, petitioner, the order of allotment was reviewed by the Tehsildar who found that the land allotted had already been entered in the settlement record in the name of the petitioner. The allotment was, accordingly, cancelled. Having felt aggrieved by this order, the non-petitioner filed an appeal before the Collector, who held that the Tehsildar had inherent power to review his order u/sec. 86(2) of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act and rejected the appeal. A second appeal was filed against this order before the learned Revenue Appellate Authority who found that the order cancelling the previous allotment had been made without issuing a notice to the non-petitioner allottee to appear and it could not, therefore, be called to be a legal order as the opposite party was not given an opportunity of being heard. It was also found by the learned Revenue Appellate Authority that an appeal had been earlier filed against the original allotment order before the Collector who had dismissed the same as it was time barred. It was held by the learned Revenue Appellate Authority that once an order had been made in appeal by an appellate court, it was only the appellate court which could review the appellate order and the original court had no jurisdiction to review its earlier order. Thus, it came to the conclusion that the Tehsildar had no power to review his own order which had been upheld in appeal. It was, further, found by the learned Revenue Appellate Authority that the original order of allotment had been made on 16-8-61 while the application for review which forms the basis of the present revision petition was made on 15-2-62. It was thus, clearly, time barred. It was, also, noted that no application was made giving sufficient reasons for presenting the application after the lapse of the prescribed time and, as such, it could not be considered as having been filed within time. It was thus, clearly, time barred. It was, also, noted that no application was made giving sufficient reasons for presenting the application after the lapse of the prescribed time and, as such, it could not be considered as having been filed within time. Under the circumstances, the learned Revenue Appellate Authority refused to look into the merits of the case and rejected the appeal for the reasons stated above. The present revision petition has been filed against the aforesaid order. It has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that, under the rules, only unoccupied land could be allotted, but as was held by the learned Tehsildar in his order dated 13-6-62, whereby he cancelled the allotment, the land allotted was in the possession of the petitioner, who also held the settlement Parcha in respect of the land and that the allotment had been made as a result of a fraud having been perpetrated by the Patwari in violation of the rules laid down in this respect. In this connection, reliance was sought on Vijai Lal vs. Bachu (RRD 1961 Page 264) wherein it was held that the Tehsildar can allot only the land covered by rule 5 read with rule.6 of the Allotment of Land for Agricultural Purposes, Rules 1957. He cannot make an order of allotment about any Khasra number applied for by any body, unless he makes sure that the land was unoccupied and that the list as required in Form I appended to the rules had been prepared. These rules are statutory rules and the compliance thereof is mandatory and any allotment made in disregard of these rules shall be held to be irregular. It was, however, admitted that at the time of the review, no opportunity was given to the non-petitioner to present his case. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the non-petitioner contended that the original order of the Tehsildar having merged in the order of the appellate court, whereby the earlier appeal of the petitioner against the allotment order had been rejected as time barred, the Tehsildar had no jurisdiction to review his own order on the application of the petitioner, which had been submitted beyond the period of limitation. It was urged that the learned Revenue Appellate Authority had committed no illegality or material irregularity in the exercise of his jurisdiction, while accepting the appeal and the impugned order should not, therefore, be interfered through this revision petition. It must be conceded that the contention of the learned counsel for the non-petitioner is not without force, but when a note is taken of the circumstances in which the original allotment was made, it cannot but be held that the original order was ab initio void, as it had been made in utter disregard of the statutory rules laid down with regard to the allotment of land for agricultural purposes. The effect of this order was to deprive a recorded khatedar of the land which was actually in his occupation. It may be conceded that the Tehsildar had no jurisdiction to review his earlier order after it had been confirmed by the appellate court. Nevertheless in view of the non-observance of the statutory rules, it must be held that this is a fit case which calls for the exercise of the powers of general superintendence and control over the revenue courts vesting in the Board of Revenue under sec. 9 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act. In this connection, it would be relevant to cite Rameshwar vs. Kishorilal (1961 RRD 114) wherein it was held that under sec. 9 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, the Board possesses the same powers as the High Court under article 227 of the Constitution of India to set right the courts below, wherever they leave the path prescribed by law and act in complete disregard thereof. As the original allotment is alleged to have been made in utter disregard of the rules framed in respect of the allotment of land for agricultural purposes, I am inclined to hold that the allotment was ab initio invalid and deserves to be set aside. However, since the allotment record has not been produced before me, I would not like to express the final opinion in this respect at this stage. However, since the allotment record has not been produced before me, I would not like to express the final opinion in this respect at this stage. In this view of the matter, it would be desirable to accept this revision petition and to remit the case to the Tehsildar for re-determining the matter after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner as well as the non-petitioner in the light of the observations made above and in accordance with the law governing the subject of the allotment of land for agricultural purposes, and the rules made thereunder. In the result, therefore, I accept this revision petition and remit the case to the Tehsildar as stated above.