JUDGMENT 1. - The facts which have given rise to this writ petition may be briefly stated. The Additional Collector, Sriganganagar, by his order dated 29, 1960 allotted agricultural lands comprised in Muraba Nos. 28, 29 and 37 situated in Chak No. 52 LNP in favour of Sajjansingh, Bahadursingh and Sultansingh. It appears that after a few years, the allottes sold the aforesaid agricultural land comprised in square Nos. 28, 29 and 37 to respondent Nos. 9 to 14. One of the petitioners Sheolal made a complaint about the alleged sales before the Collector, Sriganganangar who held that the allottees, who are respondent Nos. 5 to 7 in the present writ petition, have sold the lands in question, deriving undesirable & unauthorised benefit therefrom. The Collector, by his order dated October 9, 1961 passed under Section 14 of the Rajasthan colonisation Act, held that the allottees had committed breach of the conditions of the tenancy and directed that the lands in question be resumed by to the State Government. The respondents Nos. 5 to 7, who were the allottees of the aforesaid land, along with the transferees respondents Nos. 9 to 14 filed a revision application before the State Government. The State Minister for colonisation heard the matter on behalf of the State Government and although he agreed with the finding of the Collector that the lands in dispute were sold by the allottees without obtaining prior sanction of the Collector, yet he took into consideration certain mitigating circumstances appearing in the case, such as the allotment of land in question was made to the respondent Nos. 5 to 7 more than 7 years before the alleged sales and that the allottees had paid the full instalments in respect of the land in dispute. He therefore, modified the order passed by the Collector, Sriganganagar by his order dated April 7, 1970 to the extent that the lesser penalty provided by Section 14 of the Rajasthan Colonisation Act be imposed on the concerned allottees. It was ordered by the state Government that the sales made by the allottees may be regularised on payment of Rs. 500/- each. It is against the order of the State Government that the present writ petition has been filed in this Court. 2. It was ordered by the state Government that the sales made by the allottees may be regularised on payment of Rs. 500/- each. It is against the order of the State Government that the present writ petition has been filed in this Court. 2. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that no revision application was maintainable before the State Government against the order of resumption of tenancy rights passed by the Collector, Sriganganagar on October 9, 1968 and as such the order of the State Government is without jurisdiction. Mr. Ram Narain appearing for the respondent Nos. 9 to 14 submits that no such objection has been raised in the writ petition. However, he submitted that a revision application is maintainable before the State Government against an order passed by the Collector under Section 14 of the Rajasthan Colonisation Act, by virtue of the provisions of Section 83 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, which have been made applicable to the tenancies created under the Rajasthan Colonisation Act by the provisions of Section 5 of the Rajasthan Colonisation Act. I am inclined to agree with the submission made by Mr. Ram Narain Bishnoi. Section 5 of the Rajasthan Colonisation Act provides that the laws relating agricultural tenancies, land, the powers and duties, jurisdiction and procedure of revenue courts, the survey and record operations, the settlement and collection of revenue, rent and other demands & the partition of estates and tenancies, for the time being in force in a colony, shall apply to tenancies held and to proceedings conducted under the said Act, except as other wise provided in that Act. Thus the law relating to agricultural tenancies and land contained in the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act is applicable to the tenancies held and to the proceedings conducted under the Colonisation Act. There is nothing in the provision of the Colonisation Act which may be inconsistent with hearing or a revision petition by the State Government, in respect of orders hearing or a revision petition by the State Government, in respect of orders passed by the Collector under the provisions of Section 14 of the Rajasthan Colonisation Act. There is nothing in the provision of the Colonisation Act which may be inconsistent with hearing or a revision petition by the State Government, in respect of orders hearing or a revision petition by the State Government, in respect of orders passed by the Collector under the provisions of Section 14 of the Rajasthan Colonisation Act. Therefore, in my view, a revision application under section 83 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act was maintainable before the State Government against the order passed by the Collector, Sriganganager under Section 14 of the Colonisation Act, and the State Government was competent to hear and decide such a revision application. 3. Another submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order passed by the Collector under Section 14 of the Colonization Act was a discretionary one and that State Government could not have interferred with the aforesaid discretionary order in exercise of its revisional power under Section 83 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act. Once the Collector is satisfied that the tenant in possession of land in a colony had committed a breach of the conditions of his tenancy, he had a discretion either to impose a penalty not exceeding Rs. 500/- upon such tenant or to order the resumption of the tenancy, for committing the breach of the conditions of his tenancy. The Collector is of course duty bound to hear the tenant before passing an order imposing a penalty or directing the resumption of the tenancy. However the powers conferred upon the State Government under Section 83 of the Land Revenue Act are in contrast with the provisions in Section 84 of the said Act whereby, revisional powers have been conferred upon the Board of Revenue in respect of judicial matters. The jurisdiction of the Board of Revenue to hear a revision application under section 84 of the Land Revenue Act is analogous to the power exercisable by this Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure . But no such limitations appear in Section 83 of the aforesaid Act. It is, therefore, not possible to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the State Government could not interfere with the discretionary order passed by the Collector under Section 14 of the Colonisation Act, while exercising is revisional powers under Section 83 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act. 4. It is, therefore, not possible to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the State Government could not interfere with the discretionary order passed by the Collector under Section 14 of the Colonisation Act, while exercising is revisional powers under Section 83 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act. 4. Another submission made by the learned counsel is that an appeal lay to the Revenue Appellate Authority under section 75 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act against the order passed by the Collector & as such, the State Government should not have entertained a revision application against the order passed by the Collector under Section 14 of the Rajasthan Colonisation Act. As I have already observed above that non-judicial proceedings, not connected with settlement, a general power of revision can be exercised by the State Government under Section 83 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act and existence of another remedy by way of appeal under Section 75 of the Act, even if such an appeal lay, did not constitute a bar to the entertainment of a revision application by the State Government under Section 83 of that Act. It is not, therefore, necessary to decide in this case as to whether an appeal lay under Section 75 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act against an order passed by the Collector under Section 14 of the Rajasthan Colonization Act. In any view of the matter, the State Government had the undisputed power to entertain the revision application under Section 83 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act and to pass such an order as it considered proper in the circumstances of the Act. 5. The last submission of the learned counsel is that Shivlal Petitioner, at whose instance the Collector had taken proceeding under Section 14 of the Colonisation Act, was not made a party to the revision applications nor he was heard by the State Government before passing an order under Section 83 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act. It may be pointed out that Shivlal petitioner was merely a complainant who brought to the notice of the Collector that the respondent Nos. 5, 6 and 7 committed breach of the condition on their tenancy and he was not a necessary party to the revisional proceedings under Section 83 of the Rajasthan Revenue Act. It may be pointed out that Shivlal petitioner was merely a complainant who brought to the notice of the Collector that the respondent Nos. 5, 6 and 7 committed breach of the condition on their tenancy and he was not a necessary party to the revisional proceedings under Section 83 of the Rajasthan Revenue Act. The mere fact that Shivlal was not made a party and was not heard by the State Government, while exercising its powers under section 83 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, is not sufficient to vitiate the order passed by the State Government on April 7, 1970. 6. No other point was argued before me. 7. In the result, the writ petition has no merit and is dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs.Writ dismissed. *******