K.S. Ujwal, Member —A, S B. of this Board has referred, the following question under Section 11 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, for opinion, by order dated 4-9-74. This reference has been made in 13 cases. Another S.B. of this Board finding that the point involved in the 12 cases that came up before it, was the same as the point raised by the aforesaid order dated 4-9-74, ordered on 30-10-74, that these 12 cases may also be listed for hearing before the L.B. to be constituted for opinion on the aforesaid reference on 4-9-74. 2. The question referred is : — "Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Board of Revenue is justified in exercising the delegated powers under section 83 or section 9 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, specially when a second appeal under section 76(d) of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act would ultimately lie against a final order of the Collector under Rule 17A." 3. For the purpose of deciding the reference the following facts are relevant. 4. Land was allotted to the non applicants under the Rajasthan Colonisation (Medium and Minor Projects Government Lands Allotment) Rules, 1968 The lands are covered by an irrigation project in District Chittorgarh. Collector, Chittorgarh, believing that the allotment was not in accordance with the rules, proceeded to cancel it. He issued notice under Rule 17A of the aforesaid Rules to be hereafter called the Rules, to the non-applicants to show cause why allotment should not be cancelled. It appears that the Collector had also informed the Government that the allotment was not in order and on letter of requisition from the Board of Revenue, Collector, Chittorgarh sent 350 cases relating to allotment under the Rules In some of these 350 cases, the non applicant allottees had appeared, arguments were heard and the cases were adjourned for orders by the learned Collector. In the other cases only notices under Rule 17A were issued. Arguments had not been heard. In the other cases only notices under Rule 17A were issued. Arguments had not been heard. A batch of 9 cases from out of the above 350 were decided by a S.B. on 19-6-74 holding that the revisions are incompetent as the remedy available before the learned Collector is not yet exhausted and further that an appeal would lie before the Revenue Appellate Authority against the orders of the learned Collector and a second appeal would lie before the Board of Revenue against the orders of the learned Revenue Appellate Authority. It was further held that the Collector should be directed to decide these cases in accordance with law. 5. When the 13 cases, to be hereafter called the 1st batch, covered by the order of reference dated 4-9-74 came up for hearing before the Honble S.B and arguments were heard, the learned Member concluded that an important question of law has emerged on account of the decision dated 9-6-74 in the 9 cases-batch because, in his opinion, the Board of Revenue had requisitioned these cases in exercise of its power of general superintendence and control under section 9 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act and in exercise of powers under section 83 Rajasthan Land Revenue Act delegated by the State Government to the Board. He therefore, referred the above mentioned question to a Larger Bench. 6. We heard the learned counsel for the parties and the amicus curiae Shri N. S. Chordia, Shri M. L. Jain, Shri 3. N. Pareek and Shri Ved Vart and examined the matter. 7. We may at the outset consider objection by Shri N.S. Chordia to the maintainability of these references. He argued that in another case another Bench of the Board has referred to a Larger Bench for its opinion, the question whether Rule 17A of these Rules is ultra-vires of the Rule making power of the Government and hence the giving of opinion on the present revision should be defected till the disposal of that reference Vires of Rule 17A are not material for deciding the reference before us. On carefully reading the question referred to us, it will be observed that its decision does not depend upon the decision on the question alleged to have been referred by the other Bench. On carefully reading the question referred to us, it will be observed that its decision does not depend upon the decision on the question alleged to have been referred by the other Bench. Whether Rule 17A is ultra-vires or not is not material for our present purpose because the determination of the question referred depends not on the vires of Rule 17A, but on the alleged provision in section 76(d) of Rajasthan Land Revenue Act providing for a second appeal against the order of the Collector under Rule 17A. It is not therefore necessary to defer the giving of opinion in this reference on account of the fact that a reference is said to have been made regarding the vires of Rule 17A. 8. It was also argued by Shri Chordia that the reference is incompetent because a revision under section 83 can be filed only when the impugned order fulfils the requirement of the term "case decided." We are unable to accept this contention because in this respect there is clear distinction between the powers given by section 84 and those given by section 83. The Board is, while exercising powers given by sec 84, required to see, amongst other things, that the impugned decision qualifies as case decided, but is not required to ascertain this, while exercising powers under section 83 delegated to it by the State Government. The language of the two sections is different as can be noticed on a bare perusal of the sections which are being reproduced below for ready reference. "Section 83. Power of Government to call for records and revise order : — The State Government may call for the record of any non judicial proceedings not connected with settlement held by any officer subordinate to it, and may pass thereon such orders as it thinks fit." "Section 84—Power of the Board to call for records and revise orders. The Board may call for the record of any case of a judicial nature or connected with settlement in which no appeal lies to the Board if the court or officer by whom the case was decided appears to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it or htm by law. The Board may call for the record of any case of a judicial nature or connected with settlement in which no appeal lies to the Board if the court or officer by whom the case was decided appears to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it or htm by law. or to have exercised jurisdiction so vested, or to have acted in the exercise of its or his jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity, and may pass such orders in the case as it thinks fit." 9. It will be observed that while the State Government can call for the record of any non judicial proceedings, not connected with settlement held by any officer subordinate to it, the Board can call for record under sec. 84, if, amongst other things, the court or officer by whom the case was decided appears to exercise a jurisdiction not vested in it or him by law. 10. Shri S.N. Pareek appearing as amicus-curiae argued that powers under section 9 Rajasthan Land Revenue Act are not analogous to the powers Riven by Article 227 of the Constitution and submitted with due respect that 1962 RRD 141 is not an authority for the proposition that powers under sec. 9 are analogous to powers given by Art. 227, but propounds the rule that the Board cannot invoke powers given by sec. 9 Rajasthan Land Revenue Act where the impugned order can be challenged before it by way of an appeal or revision. 11. In judgment reported as 1962 RRD 141 (Karan Singh vs. Board of Revenue) it was argued by the counsel before our High Court that the judgment pronounced by the Board in favour of Ramsukha was justified on account of provisions of section 9 Land Revenue Act. Observing that the language of section 9 Land Revenue Act is similar to that of section 12, of the Rajasthan Board of Revenue Ordinance 1949, the Honble High Court held, on the analogy of its decision in the case of Kana and others vs. Board of Revenue, that the powers of superintendence would generally nor be exercised where a party had a remedy by way of appeal and revision and did not avail of it. Ramsukha in that case had the right of appeal He waived it and answering the question whether the Board of Revenue could, in the circumstances, acting in exercise of powers of control and superintendence, grant the relief prayed for, the Honble High Court held that powers of control and superintendence under sec. 9 Land Revenue Act have to be exercised subject to other provisions of the Act and where appellate or revisionery jurisdiction has been given to the Board, the powers given by section 9 cannot be invoked. It was held that "in case where appellate and revisionery powers are not exercisable, the Board may exercise its powers of superintendence and control in the interest of justice in appropriate cases, but in this case the Board had appellate jurisdiction and it could not, therefore make use of its powers of superintendence and control and the order of the Board cannot be held proper with reference to sec. 9 of the Land Revenue Act." The same view was expressed by the Board in the case of Chotu vs. Ladhu (1966 RRD 600) by holding that when remedy was available to a petitioner by way of appeal and when remedy of revision is still available there are no grounds for invoking powers given by section 9. 12. For applying the rule propounded in Karan Singhs case to the present reference, so far as section 9 Land Revenue Act is concerned, it may be mentioned so far as facts and the circumstances of the case are concerned, that the proceedings which have been received by the Board on requisition by the Registrar were pending before learned Collector. The Collector had not passed any order in these proceedings. The law provides for an appeal to the Revenue Appellate Authority against orders that can be passed by the learned Collector in these proceedings and also for the filing of revision. It can thus be said that in the present case, the right of revision and appeal has been given by statute to the person who may be aggrieved by the order ultimately passed by the Collector. On account of such right the rule propounded in Karansinghs case would stand in the way of the Board invoking its powers under section 9 Land Revenue Act. 13. On account of such right the rule propounded in Karansinghs case would stand in the way of the Board invoking its powers under section 9 Land Revenue Act. 13. Remaining question to be seen is whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Board can proceed under the section 83 Rajasthan Land Revenue Act to pass orders in the files sent by the Collector. 14. Shri S. N. Pareek appearing as amicus-curiae argued that sec. 83 gives the discretion to provide remedy by way of revision and that the Board has, in a number of cases, held that these powers cannot be invoked where the party moving the Board has got another remedy before it. He referred in this connection to the judgments reported as 1974 RRD 363 and 1974 RRD 500. In these cases, under section 83 Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, it was held that the Board would not interfere by way of revision with an order against which the party seeking Boards indulgence has another remedy, and such remedy has not been availed of. The remedy under sec. 83 is not a right of a party but a discretionary privilege of the court and revision under section 83 would not be maintainable where the impugned order, could be challenged in appeal. In the cases under reference also the remedy of appeal would be available and hence the Board can refuse to invoke its powers under section 83. 15. While considering the matter we have also to bear in mind an important aspect of the circumstances of these cases. Land was allotted to the non-applicants by an officer having jurisdiction. The Officer presumably relied upon documents filed by the non-applicants to prove their eligibility for allotment. The learned Collector proceeded under section 17A presumably on the basis of his information to cancel this allotment. Orders of cancellation can primafacie be passed only if evidence to prove that the non-applicants are not eligible is produced. The Collector can take such evidence in proceedings under section 17A and such evidence can be considered by the learned Revenue Appellate Authority if an appeal is preferred after the Collector has passed an order under sec, 17A. The Board sitting in revision has to pass an order on the basis of the proceedings as they are and does not record evidence in revision. The Board sitting in revision has to pass an order on the basis of the proceedings as they are and does not record evidence in revision. The Board would not, therefore, be able in this veiw of the matter to take evidence and without such evidence a lawful order under section 17A may not be possible in some of the cases at least. 16. Next we have to see whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Board can proceed suo-motu in exercise of powers under s. 83 to revise the order. When we look at the matter from this angle, the question that arises first and foremost is which is the order to be revised by the Board. The order which is sought to be revised must be before the Board. The orders have not been filed in the Board. For deciding whether a fit case for suo-motu revision is made out, the Board has to apply its mind to the alleged illegal order. It can decide whether a primafacie case for revision is made out only after considering the order which needs revision. For proceeding to revise an order, suo-moto Board must have an opportunity of seeing the order and applying its mind to the legality of the order. In these cases no Member of the Board went through the impugned orders or applied his mind to the order and recorded the finding that the matter deserves to be revised. The requisition sent by the learned Registrar does not amount to a decision by the Board to the effect that a fit case for sou-moto revision is made out and the proceeding should be called for further necessary action unders section 83 Land Revenue Act. In the absence of the facts of each case, there in nothing to show that a revision is primafacie justified. The exercise of powers under section 83 will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and the facts and circumstances of the order impugned. In the absence of the facts of each case, there in nothing to show that a revision is primafacie justified. The exercise of powers under section 83 will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and the facts and circumstances of the order impugned. Where the order impugned has not come before the Board and it is not aware of the facts and the circumstances of each case which has been requisitioned by the Registrar, no foundation for suo-moto revision under section 83 Rajasthan Land Revenue Act can be said to have been made out, The Registrars letter of requisition does say that files are being requisitioned as directed by the Board. Learned Government Advocate was not able to show any recorded direction by any Member of the Board or the Board. Moreover as already stated, the Board or its Members could not, as a judicial body, give an order for suo-moto revision of 350 cases in a general way without examining the impugned orders or proceedings for ascertaining whether a primafacie case for such suo-moto revision is made out. 17. In view of this it can be stated that in the facts and the circumstances of the case, the revisions are not maintainable and the reference may be answered in the following words : — "Under the facts and the circumstances of the case the Board of Revenue cannot invoke its powers under secs. 9 and 83 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act to interfere with these cases."