JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner has challenged the order of the Deputy Collector, Sawai Madhopur dated August 17, 1982 (Annex. 5) as well as the order of the Commissioner Municipal Board. Sawai Madhopur dated 22th May, 1979. The petitioner has also challenged the order of the learned Revenue Appellate Authority under which it refused to entertain the revision preferred before him by the petitioner against the order dated August 17, 1982 of the learned Sub Divisional Officer, Sawai Madhopur. 2. A residential plot No. 37 measuring 25X35 situated in Jawahar Nagar Scheme was sanctioned by lottery system to the petitioner he being an ex-military person. The petitioner deposited 1/4th of the amount of the price of the plot. So far as 3/4th of the price of the plot is concerned, it could not be deposited. He applied to the Commissioner, Municipal Board for depositing the same price. The Commissioner, Municipal Board under his order dated 2nd May, 1979 (Annex. 4) ordered for concellation of his allotment and the refund of 1 /4th of the amount deposited by him. The petitioner Tiled an appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer Sawai Madhopur which was dismissed Thereafter, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the learned Revenue Appellate Authority Kota who returned the revision petition in original to the petitioner with the endorsement that the same was not maintainable. 3. It is not proper for (sic) to go into the disputed facts as to whether the petitioner is having a residential plot in village Kasthala District Sawai Madhopur or not and whether the petitioner did not mention this fact in his application for allotment or not. Toe case of the petitioner is that in his application for allotment he had not mentioned that he was having a house in village Kasthala, Dist. Sawai Madhopur. But later on some body else, an interested person of the Municipality, made such an entry of his back. Whereas the case of respondent is that information was supplied by the petitioner that he was having a Kaccha house in Kasthala but some how it escaped the not,ce at the time of allotment of the plot. 4. Sawai Madhopur. But later on some body else, an interested person of the Municipality, made such an entry of his back. Whereas the case of respondent is that information was supplied by the petitioner that he was having a Kaccha house in Kasthala but some how it escaped the not,ce at the time of allotment of the plot. 4. in my opinion, this writ petition deserves to be all awed on the ground that the revision petition lies before the learned Revenue Appellate Authority and as such, the Revenue Appellate Authority should not have returned the same with the endorsement that the revision petition was not maintainable. 5. Under Section 300 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act the State Government or any authority authorised in this behalf by the State Government may, for the purpose of being satisfied as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any order passed or purporting to have been passed, under this Act. by or on behalf of any board, its Chairman, Vice-Chairman, any member or officer, or a Collector or other officer appointed by the State Government in the behalf, call for the relevant record, and may in doing so, direct that, pending the examination of such record, such order shall be held in abeyance and no action in furtherance thereof shall be taken till the decision of the State Government or of the authority authorised in this behalf by the State Government. Under sub-section (2) of Section 300, the State Government or the authority authorised in this behalf by the State can examine the record and the order may be reversed or modified. 6. The State Government vide notification No. F 8(84)/LSG/62 dated April 30, 1966 published in Rajasthan Gazatte in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (I) of Section SUU, of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act 1959 (Rajasthan Act 38 of 1959) and in supersession of the Department's earlier notification, issued in its behalf authorised the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer in respect of Municipal Councils in Rajasthan to call for the record under the provisions of Section 300 It also authorised the Director, Local Bodies. Rajasthan, Jaipur in respect of Municipal Council & all Municipal Boards in Rajasthan and Revenue Appellate Authority in respect of Municipal Board in their respective jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of the above referred to authorities is concurrent. Rajasthan, Jaipur in respect of Municipal Council & all Municipal Boards in Rajasthan and Revenue Appellate Authority in respect of Municipal Board in their respective jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of the above referred to authorities is concurrent. Under the provisions aforesaid, before taking any action under Section 300 it shall be ascertained that the applicant has not hied his application before others. Therefore, the Revenue Appellate Authority is also an authority and has been authorised for the purposes of Section 3JO by the State Government and the Revenue Appellate Authority could not have refused to entertain the revision petition filed before it as the jurisdiction vested in it. 7. Consequently, the order of the Revenue Appellate Authority dated 5-7-1985 endorsing that the Revenue Appellate Authority has no jurisdiction to bear the revision and therefore it be returned, is set aside. The original revision petition which is annexed to the writ petition shall be returned to the petitioner. The petitioner shall present it again before the learned Revenue Appellate Authority who is directed to dispose the case in accordance with the law. Cost made easy.Petition allowed *******