JUDGMENT 1. - Learned counsel for the parties submit that the cases can be disposed of finally today. 2. These two writ petitions Nos. 1487 and 1488 of 1981 under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India are directed against the same order dated July 9, 1981 of the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer delivered in appeals Nos. 3 and 4 of i978. As common questions of law and fact arise in both these cases, they are disposed of by a common order. 3. Out of khasra No. 2279 situated in village Phagi land measuring 8 bighas was allotted to each of the petitioner on September 22,1976. These allotments were cancelled by the Additional Collector, Jaipur vide his order dated December 27, 1977. Being aggrieved with the order of the Additional Collector, the allottees went up in appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Jaipur, who rejected their appeals on the ground that the appellants had not attached the copies of the allotment orders with the memo of appeals and thus violated Rule 30 of the Revenue Courts Manual Volume II and the appeals were not maintainable. Against the rejection of the appeals, the petitioners went up in second appeal before the Board of Revenue. The learned Member of the Board of Revenue after considering the arguments advanced before him held that the main question which was raised before him was whether the Revenue Appellate Authority could have rejected the appeals before him merely because the copies of the orders of Allotments Committee were not attached with the memos of appeal ?. The learned Member held that a larger Bench of the Board of Revenue had already held that Rule 30 of the Revenue Courts Manual was mandatory and failure to submit the copy of the order of the Court of first instance was a fatal defect and not capable of being rectified. It this view of the muter he rejected the appeals. Hence these writ petitions. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners have brought to our notice a full Bench decision of the Board of Revenue delivered in Bajranga v. Badri (1981 RRD 630). This decision is based on a Single Bench decision of the Board of Revenue delivered in State v. Bhopal Chand (1973 RRD 303) to which one of us was a party. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners have brought to our notice a full Bench decision of the Board of Revenue delivered in Bajranga v. Badri (1981 RRD 630). This decision is based on a Single Bench decision of the Board of Revenue delivered in State v. Bhopal Chand (1973 RRD 303) to which one of us was a party. In the above noted Single Bench judgment it was held that the Collector empowered to cancel allotment suo motu or on an application exercises power of an original Court and neither any appellate nor revisional jurisdiction. This case was approved by Division Bench of the Board of Revenue in Jagannath v. Radhey Shyam (1973 RRD 393) as well as by a Full Bench as noted above. We respectfully agree with the reasonings of the Full Bench of Revenue and hold that the impugned order passed under Rule 14 sub-clause (iv) was an original order and the first appeal was maintainable before the Revenue Appellate Authority and second appeal before the Board of Revenue. 5. As the learned Member of the Board of Revenue has not decided the case on merits, we set aside the impugned order dated July 9, 1981 and remit the case back to the Board of Revenue for being disposed of on merits according to law. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are ordered to bear their own costs. *******