RAJENDRA SAXENA, J.—The four writ petitions, particulars whereof have been given in the Schedule annexed hereto, raise identical questions of law and facts, and hence, have been heard together and are being disposed of by a common order. As illustrative of facts of all the cases, we may briefly narrate the facts of the D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1328/89 (Narain Vs. State of Rajasthan. 2. Under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Land for Agricultural Purposes) Rules, 1970 (for short the Rules of 1970) read with provisions of Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Rules, 1973 (for short the Rules of 1973) the Allotting Authority (S.D.O. Begun) proceeded to make allotment of excess ceiling land in favour of the petitioner. A meeting was fixed for this purpose on 3.6,1981, at which besides the S DO. two memoers of the Advisory Committee namely Tebsildar, Begun and Sarpanch, Avalheda were also present. Since three members of the Advisory Committee were not present and the quorum was incomplete, the meeting was adjourned to 3 P.M. the same day. At the adjourned meeting, again the Allotting Authority and two members of the Advisory Committee were present. The Allotting Authority considered that the quorum was complete and hence by Annexure-1 he proceeded to make the allotment in question. This allotment was challenged by respondent No. 3 Devi Lal by filing an application before Collector, Chittorgarh. This application was accepted by the Collector, Chittorgarh vide order Annexure-2 dated 13 9.1983. One of the grounds which prevailed with the Collector was that the quorum of the Advisory Committee was not complete in as much as at the adjourned meeting only two members of the Advisory Committee were present. Some other objections were also taken before him. But he made a vague and generalised observation that the procedure and the Rules with regard to allotment had not been complied with. He however did not record any specific finding about the alleged contravention of such procedure or Rules. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Udaipur Camp Chittorgarh, which was dismissed. The learned Appellate Authority agreed with the Collector that the quorum was not complete. He however did not record any specific finding about the alleged contravention of such procedure or Rules. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Udaipur Camp Chittorgarh, which was dismissed. The learned Appellate Authority agreed with the Collector that the quorum was not complete. The petitioner took the matter to the Board of Revenue, but the learned Member of the Board also concurred with the Collector and the Revenue Appellate Authority that the quorum was not complete. He further said that the members of the Advisory Committee did not have any notice of the adjourned meeting held on the same day. He, therefore, affirmed the orders passed by the lower courts. 3. In this writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Collector, Revenue Appellate Authority and the Revenue Board had completely gone wrong in understanding the provisions regarding quorum of the meeting. He submits that once the meeting of the Advisory Committee had been adjourned, neither fresh notice was necessary to the members present nor any notice was necessary to the members of the Advisory Committee, who had not attended the meeting. He, therefore, submits that the impugned orders of learned Collector, learned Revenue Appellate Authority and the learned Member, Board of Revenue deserve to be quashed. 4. The writ petition has been opposed on behalf of respondents and it is submitted that a fresh notice of the adjourned meeting ought to have been given to all the members of the Advisory Committee and since no such notice had been given, the meeting could not have taken place and the impugned allotments so made were illegal. It is also reiterated that since the Collector had found that there was violation of the procedure and Rules relating to allotments, therefore, his order did not warrant any interference. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that so far as the finding recorded by the Collector regarding violation of procedure and Rules of allotment is concerned, it is at best a vague and generalised statement, in as much as, he has not specified as to what particular violation of procedure and the Rules had been made. He, therefore, concedes the Collectors order on this count can not be supported. 6. We have given our earnest consideration to the rival contentions. 7. He, therefore, concedes the Collectors order on this count can not be supported. 6. We have given our earnest consideration to the rival contentions. 7. At the very out set we may state that allotment of the land in question is admittedly governed by provisions of the Rules, 1970 read with the Rules of 1973. Rule 13 of Rules 1970 envisages the allotment by a Sub-Divisional Officer in consultation with an Advisory Committee consisting of certain specified persons and officers. Sub-rule (2) of this Rule provides as follows :- "The Sub-Divisional Officer shall give at least one weeks notice of the date, time and place of the meeting to the members of the Advisory Committee. The notice shall be accompanied by a copy of the list of unoccupied government lands proposed to be allotted at the said meeting. This list shall contain the particulars required to be given in columns 1 to 6 of form 1." 8. Sub-rule (3) of this Rule lays down the mode and procedure in which notice of this meeting has to be served. Then comes Sub-rule 3-A, which is material for resolving the controversy in this matter. It reads, "The quorum for constituting the meeting of Advisory Committee shall be three members: Provided that if a meeting of the Advisory Committee is adjourned for the want of quorum, for the adjourned meeting shall be two members." 9. In the present case, there is no dispute that when the Advisory Committee meeting was initially held, the quorum was not complete because only two members were present. Consequently, the Allotting Authority (S.DO.) adjourned the meeting. There is also no dispute that at this adjourned meeting again two members were present. 10. Now, the question is whether the notice of such an adjourned meeting was required to be given to all members of the Advisory Committee ? in B.K. Sen Guptas Company Meetings Law & Procedure (Eastern Law House). 1985 Edition at page 92, expression adjournment has been explained as follows :- "The meaning of the word "adjournment" is the act of adjourning or state of being adjourned. To adjourn means to suspend continuance of or action or decision on something; to put off further proceedings of something either indefinitely or until a later stated time; to suspend a session or meeting till another time or indefinitely (Websters Third New International Dictionary)." 11. To adjourn means to suspend continuance of or action or decision on something; to put off further proceedings of something either indefinitely or until a later stated time; to suspend a session or meeting till another time or indefinitely (Websters Third New International Dictionary)." 11. Adjournment has been contrasted to postponement and the exposition of law on this aspect shows that adjournment is different from postponement altogether. The following observation in the said book would elucidate this point :- "Adjournment of a meeting and postponement of a meeting are not the same thing. To postpone means to held back to a later time; to defer (Websters Third New International Dictionary). And adjournment of a meeting denotes that the meeting is suspended and, therefore, assumes that the proceedings have once commenced. Postponement, on the other hand is used to indicate that the commencement of a meeting is itself deferred." 12. Now, in this very treatise, the learned author has discussed, whether notice of adjournment is required to be given. At page 97, he states the law as follows :- "An adjourned meeting is merely an extension or continuation of the original meeting (Scadding v Lorant) (1851) 3 HL Case 4l8). A due notice of meeting extends to all adjournments of the meeting, and further notice of an adjourned meeting is not necessary unless the articles so provide Most articles do so provide when the adjournment is of some length." 13. The Shackleton on the Law and Practice of Meetings (Seventh Edition) by Ian Shearman at page 80 states the law on this subject as follows:- "An adjourned meeting is deemed to be a continuation of the former meeting and no new notice is necessary." 14. No law law been cited before us, which may require notice to be given of an adjourned meeting. We may state that Rule 13 of Rules 1970 does not contain any provision providing requirement of any fresh notice of an adjourned meeting at all. When it is so, apparently the Collector, Revenue Appellate Authority and the Board fell in an apparent error in holding that a fresh notice for an adjourned meeting was necessary. We have already reproduced the relevant Rule, which shows that the presence of two members of the Advisory Committee was sufficient to form a quorum for an adjourned meeting. When it is so, apparently the Collector, Revenue Appellate Authority and the Board fell in an apparent error in holding that a fresh notice for an adjourned meeting was necessary. We have already reproduced the relevant Rule, which shows that the presence of two members of the Advisory Committee was sufficient to form a quorum for an adjourned meeting. Therefore, we find that the adjourned meeting was proper and did not suffer from want of quorum at all. Hence the impugned allotments of land are not without jurisdiction. 15. The learned Member of Board of Revenue has made an observation to the effect that the method adopted by the S.D.O. was a circumvention of the provisions relating to the quorum. We are of the view that this remark was uncalled for and not at all warranted in the circumstances of the case, because the S.D.O. had adjourned the meeting in accordance with the Rules. 16. The next question for our consideration is that whether we should uphold the order of the Collector on the ground that there is some violation pertaining to procedure and Rules applicable to allotment. We have already stated that the observations made by the Collector were vague, generalised and omnibus. Hence, in the circumstances of the case, it has become imperative that the matter be re-examined and the Collector may give specific finding if there was any contravention of procedure and Rules while making the impugned allotments of land. 17. No other point has been argued before us. 18. The up-shot of the above discussion is that we accept these writ petitions, quash the impugned orders of learned Collector, Chittorgarh, learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Udaipur and of learned Board of Revenue. We remand these cases to the Collector, Chittorgarh and direct him to dispose of these matters afrash after hearing the parties within a perod of three months from the date, he receives the copy of this judgment. He shall examine if there is any violation of procedure of Rules of allotment warranting cancellation of allotments made in favour of the petitioners. In the circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs.