Judgment 1. This writ petition has been filed by State of Rajasthan against the judgment of the Board of Revenue dated 10-4-1980. 2. The facts briefly stated are that the Sub-Divisional Officer, Ganganagar dropped the proceedings of calculating the surplus land on 25-8-1975 finding that Ganga Ram had 74 bighas of nebri land in his possession which was within the ceiling limit. On amendment being made, an order was passed by the State Government on 7-11-1977 stating that as it was not clear whether Subhash was actually an adopted son of Ganga Ram and whether he was major on 1-1-1973. For this purpose proceedings were reopen and the case was heard by the Additional Collector, Ganganagar. He came to the conclusion, after examining the evidence, that Subhash was not the adopted son of Ganga Ram and that the lqtter would have to surrender 27 bighas 12 biswas of land being surplus with him. 3. Aggrieved with the said order, an appeal was filed before the Board of Revenue by Ganga Ram. The appeal was dismissed on 8-2-80. Thereafter, Ganga Ram moved an application for review under Section 86 of the Land Revenue Act. The ground taken in the review application was that Subhash was, in fact an adopted son and the finding recorded by the Board of Revenue was vitiated by misreading the evidence led by the parties. Ganga Ram also moved an application under Order 41, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure and adduced fresh evidence before the Board. The Board of Revenue, after considering the evidence, filed before it by means of the application aforesaid, reversed its earlier judgment dated 8-2-80 and allowed the review application holding that Subhash was adopted son of Ganga Ram. As a result of this finding the Board held that no land was liable to be declared surplus. 4. Against the said judgment the present writ petition has been preferred by the State of Rajasthan. 5. Havingheard learned Counsel for the State we are of the opinion that the Board had committed an error in allowing the review application and recalling its earlier judgment dated 8-2-80. 4. Against the said judgment the present writ petition has been preferred by the State of Rajasthan. 5. Havingheard learned Counsel for the State we are of the opinion that the Board had committed an error in allowing the review application and recalling its earlier judgment dated 8-2-80. The well established principle is that the review cannot be allowed by rewriting the judgment and reversing its earlier by reappreciating evidence led by the parties, In the facts and circumstances the Board found that after reading the evidence on record Subhash was not the adopted son of Ganga Ram but in the review proceedings the Board reversed its finding on the basis of evidence led under Order 41, Rule 27, CPC It was rightly alleged by the Counsel for the State that no fresh evidence could be taken and findings of the Board could not be reversed on that basis. Order 41, Rule 27 applies to first or second appeal, it does not apply to review proceedings. Taking of evidence by means of application under Order 41, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure was illegal and not permissible. The Board of Revenue, therefore, could not, on the basis of the new evidence brought on record, reverse its previous judgment dated 8-2-80 and held that Subhash was the adopted son of Ganga Ram. 6. What is material in this connection is that there has been a change of opinion of the Board of Revenue about the adoption of Subhash. Previously the Board of Revenue found that adoptive father had only one son that could not be, in the tacts and circumstances of the case considered to be a justified ground for holding that the adoptive father had given Subhash in adoption of Ganga Ram. This time, however, the Board, of Revenue changed its finding by holding that the adoptive father had three children. This material was available with the respondent Ganga Ram at the time when the appeal was decided by the Board of Revenue and also when the Sub-Divisional Officer had reopen the proceedings, therefore, the respondent, Ganga Ram should not have been permitted to lead fresh evidence and sought review of the earlier judgment given in the appeal. The Board has not found that there was mistake apparent on the face of record. The Board has not found that there was mistake apparent on the face of record. It travelled beyond its jurisdiction in reopening the findings and recalling its earlier judgment.” In the result the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order of the Board of Revenue dated 10-4-1980 is set aside and the earlier judgment dated 8-2-80 is restored. No costs.