This revision petition arises out of the order of the Revenue Appellate Authority dated 24.4.1963 dismissing the petitioners second appeal against the order passed by the Additional Collector, Jaipur dated 30.7.1962. This revision petition is clearly not maintainable on the ground that no revision lies to the Board of Revenue on the subject of allotment of land for agricultural purposes u/s 101 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act readwith the Rajasthan Land , Revenue (Allotment of land for agricultural purposes Rules), 1947 being a non-judicial matter but purely an executive matter. Sec. 23 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act clearly lays down that the control of all non-judicial matters connected with revenue in the State, other than matters connected with settlement vested in the State Govt. The control of all judicial matters as well as settlement matters vested in the Board. The aforesaid section further lays down that the expression judicial matters means a proceeding in which the Revenue Court or Officer has to determine the rights and liabilities of the parties thereto and the proceedings and orders as well as appeals revisions and references in the cases specified in the First Schedule shall be deemed to be judicial matters for the purposes of that Act. The subject allotment of land finds no place in the 15 items enumerated in the 1st Schedule relating to list of judicial matters. Under these circumstances the allotment of agricultural land is not a judicial matter and therefore no revision would lie to the Board u/s. 84 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, but this power of revision however is exercisable by the State Government u/s. 83 of the same Act being a non-judicial proceedings and not connected with settlement. Similar view was taken in land allotment matters by Shri R. N. Madhok in the two cases of State vs. Samast Janta Chharbhuja and State vs. Hukma reported in R.R.D. 1965 p. 203, where the Collector, Udaipur made reference for getting cancellation of orders of allotment of land to the Board of Revenue. Therefore, for the reasons stated above the Board of Revenue has no jurisdiction to exercise his revisionary powers in such matters. Secondly, the concurrent finding of the two appellate Courts below against the order of allotment passed by the Tehsildar was clear that the Tehsildar had not followed the various rules for allotment of land at the time of making allotment. Secondly, the concurrent finding of the two appellate Courts below against the order of allotment passed by the Tehsildar was clear that the Tehsildar had not followed the various rules for allotment of land at the time of making allotment. Therefore, for that reason also the Board of Revenue is reluctant to interfere in the orders already passed by the two subordinate Courts on a question of fact for noncompliance of the rules of allotment by the Tehsildar and would be disinclined even in exercise of his powers of sec. 9 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act relating to superintendence and control over revenue Courts. For this reason also this revision petition must fail. Before I part with this case I would like to make an important observation that in all allotment proceedings before the Revenue Courts State is a necessary party being the land holder and the interest of the State in the Courts should invariably be represented by the Tehsildar by making him party to the proceedings as a representative of the State land-holder. The State is a necessary party in such cases because there is a danger of collusion between the allottee of the land and the objector to such allotment. It is, therefore, necessary that the land-holders representative must have the final say in the matter that the allotment made to an allottee by the Tehsildar must stand and just because a compromise has been arrived at between the objector and the allottee, the land need not be transferred to the objector. It is only in order to eliminate such dangers of collusive proceedings that it is necessary that State should invariably be made a party in such proceedings. For the reasons stated above this revision petition of the petitioner is accordingly rejected.