JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) THIS petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging an order passed by the Board of Revenue dated 27-10-69 wherein the learned Member of the Board of Revenue entertaining a revision petition order setting aside of the order of allotment of the land in favour of the petitioner No. 3. ( 2. ) ACCORDING to the petitioners, the land in dispute bears survey No. 146 having an area 6 Bighas, 10 Biswas and situated in villages Netehara, Pargana jora, District Morena. It is alleged that the Patwari of the village included this land in the list of un-occupied land, suitable for allotment, whereupon by notification applications were invited for allotment of this land. Petitioner No. 3 Kalla submitted his application for allotment of this land and after following necessary formalities as required by the law at that time, the land was allotted in favour of Petitioner No. 3 by the orders of the Naib-tahsildar Jora dated 27-11-61. ( 3. ) AFTERWARDS, when the land was brought under cultivation, petitioner no. 3 sold away this land to petitioners Nos. 1 and 2, and handed over possession also to petitioners Nos. 1 and 2. When these petitioners were in possession non-petitioner No. 1 along with some others attempted to commit trespass over the land and, therefore, petitioners launched proceedings under section 250 of the Land Revenue Code. The Tahsildar Jora by his order dated 4-7-64 restored the possession to the petitioners under section 250 of the Land Revenue Code. ( 4. ) AFTERWARDS Nekse (non-petitioner No. 1) moved an application for review of the order passed by the Naib Tahsildar on 27-11-61 in respect of the allotment of the land. This application was filed before the Tahsildar, Jora. By his order dated 13-8-64, Tahsildar Jora submitted a report to the Collector that as the Naib-Tahsildar, who has passed the orders of allotment had been transferred from Tahsil Jora, the review petition cannot be entertained by him and the only authority which could consider the review petition was the Collector. He, therefore, submitted his report for necessary orders to the Collector, Morena. ( 5. ) THE Collector, Morena, by his order dated 27-10-65 rejected the review petition holding that the review petition was not filed before the proper authority and that he had no jurisdiction to entertain this petition. He, therefore, submitted his report for necessary orders to the Collector, Morena. ( 5. ) THE Collector, Morena, by his order dated 27-10-65 rejected the review petition holding that the review petition was not filed before the proper authority and that he had no jurisdiction to entertain this petition. On an application made by respondent No. 1, learned Collector considered this as a revision petition filed before him and after recording evidence came to the conclusion that there was no irregularity in the proceedings of allotment and he, therefore, maintained the order of allotment by order dated 6-7-66. ( 6. ) AGAINST this non-petitioner No. 1 filed a revision before the Commissioner, Gwalior Division, but he too by his order dated 25-7-67 rejected the revision petition. Against this, non-petitioner No. 1 filed a revision petition before the Board of Revenue and by the impugned order dated 27-10-69, the learned Member of the Board of Revenue allowed by the revision and reversed the orders passed by the Commissioner and the Collector and vacated the Patta granted and also set aside the order of allotment. It is against this order that the petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution has been filed. ( 7. ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners contended that initially the allotment order was passed in 1961 and against that order within the prescribed period no revision or review petition was filed. Consequently, the Collector or the Commissioner could not have entertained any revision application after the lapse of time and the learned member of the Board of Revenue could not also revise the order of allotment after expiry of the period of limitation provided for revision. ( 8. ) LEARNED counsel also contended that non-petitioner No. 1 was not a party to these proceedings. Petitioner No. 3 was the only person concerned, who had applied for allotment and after following due formalities, the land was allotted to him. Consequently, non-petitioner No. 1, not being a party to the proceedings and also not being one of the applicants for allotment, could not be said to be really aggrieved person, who could file a revision petition before any of the authorities in the M. P. Land Revenue Code. ( 9. ) IT was also contended that section 162 of the M. P. Land Revenue code was repealed in 1964. ( 9. ) IT was also contended that section 162 of the M. P. Land Revenue code was repealed in 1964. Although the allotment was made under section 162, but when the review petition and the revision petition were filed section 162 was no longer in existence. Consequently, the revenue authorities including the board could not entertain the revision petition, as after the repeal of section 162 it was only revenue rules and circulars which remained in force for matters of allotment of land and under the rules, it was only the State Government which had jurisdiction to entertain the revision petition. It was also contended in the alternative that even if the Board of Revenue had jurisdiction to entertain the revision petition, still in revision petitions it had no jurisdiction to disturb the findings of fact arrived at by the Collector and, therefore, also it was contended that the impugned order passed by the Board of Revenue deserves to be quashed. Learned counsel for non-petitioner No. 1 contended that for a revision petition sun motu there is no limitation and in support of his contention he relied on the decision in Khumansingh v. Dhansingh (1971 RN 351= 1971 JLJ 577 . ). He also contended that although section 162 was repealed, but as the order passed for allotment was under the provisions of section 162, the revision was maintainable before the Board of Revenue. ( 10. ) ADMITTEDLY, non-petitioner No. 1 was not a party to the proceedings of allotment. It is also not in dispute that much beyond the period of limitation review petition for the first time was filed by respondent No. 1. It is also not in dispute that on the date on which revision petition was considered by Collector Morena, section 162 was not in force. According to the learned counsel, although the petitioner was not a party to the proceedings, but was interested in them as the allotment was done without following the procedure prescribed under section 162 of the M. P. Land Revenue Code and Rules framed thereunder. According to the learned counsel, although the petitioner was not a party to the proceedings, but was interested in them as the allotment was done without following the procedure prescribed under section 162 of the M. P. Land Revenue Code and Rules framed thereunder. In Phoolsingh v. Collector, Vidisha (1966 RN 309=1966 JLJ 547), Division Bench of this Court held: - "since Baldwansingh, Kamoda and Kunja were not in that sense persons aggrieved by the orders passed by the Tahsildar under section 51 of the Act, they had no right of appeal and the orders passed by the Collector, the Commissioner and the Board of Revenue cannot be sustained. " Apparently, therefore, non-petitioner No. 1 not being a party to the proceedings could not be said to be a person aggrieved and, therefore, cannot file a review or revision application against the order. It was contended by the learned counsel that exercising jurisdiction under section 50 the authorities could act suo motu, but it is apparent from the orders of the Board of Revenue, Collector and Commissioner that they were not acting suo motu exercising jurisdiction under section 50. In the decision referred to above a similar contention was raised and it was answered in words :- "the short answer to this contention is that the two appellate authorities did not act under that section. " ( 11. ) IT is no doubt true that in Khumansingh v. Dhansingh (supra) a Division Bench of this Court held that for exercising revisional powers suo motu limitation will not be a bar. Apparently, that decision will not be applicable to the present case as here the matter was moved by non-petitioner No. 1 by way of petition and admittedly before the Board of Revenue it was a revision petition filed by non-petitioner No. 1. When a revision petition is moved by a party whether it could be said to be exercise of suo motu powers is a question which came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in Maliram v. Board of Revenue (1967 JLJ Note 53.) and it was held in that case as under:- "the impugned order itself showed the respondent No. 5 as the applicant while the petitioner No. 1 was shown as the non applicant. The S. D. O. nowhere stated in the order that he was exercising the powers suo motu. The S. D. O. nowhere stated in the order that he was exercising the powers suo motu. " and it was further observed :- "the review application having been made by respondents 5 to 8 after 90 days of the passing of original order, could not be entertained by the S. D. O. in view of the third proviso under section 51 (1) of the M. P. Land Revenue Code, 1959. " Apparently, therefore, as the authorities including the Board of Revenue did not purport to act suo motu, but acted on a revision petition filed by non petitioner no. 1 that could not have been entertained beyond the period of limitation. ( 12. ) THE order passed by the learned Member of the Board of Revenue goes to show that the learned Member set aside the findings of fact arrived at the Collector, who had recorded evidence and examined the witnesses. The learned Member of the Board of Revenue after appreciation of the evidence afresh held that no compliance of the Rules framed under section 162 of the m. P. Land Revenue Code was done. It cannot be doubted that on questions of fact decided by the Collector, the Board of Revenue exercising revisional powers could not re-assess the evidence and interfere with the findings of fact. ( 13. ) THERE is yet another difficulty, which, it appears, the learned Member of the Board of Revenne did not consider. The allotment was made in 1961. Thereafter, for the first time after a lapse of long period and beyond limitation, respondent No. 1 filed a review petition. Learned Member of the Board of revenue ultimately in 1969 held that the allotment was bad. During this period, after allotment, the petitioners acquired the rights of Bhumiswamis and by exercising revisional jurisdiction beyond the period of limitation (4 or 5 years)it could not be justified to set aside the order of allotment made in favour of petitioner No. 3. In view of this and the discussion above, in our opinion, the order passed by the learned Member of the Board of Revenue cannot be maintained. 15 Consequently, the petition is allowed. The order passed by the Board of Revenue dated 27-10-69 is hereby quashed. The petitioners shall be entitled to costs of this petition; counsels fee Rs. 100, if certified. The security amount deposited by petitioners shall be refunded. Petition allowed.