JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order of the Board of Revenue, Ajmer dated September, 23, 1993 (Annexure 8) by which it has allowed the revision petition filed by the respondent No. 4 Khema Ram against the order of the Additional Colonisation Commissioner- cum-Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner dated March 16,1992, repelling the preliminary objections against the maintainability of the appeal filed by the petitioner before him (Additional Colonisation Commissioner) under Rule 23, Rajasthan Colonisation (Allotment and Sale of Government Land in the Rajasthan (Canal) Colony area) Rules, 1975 (hereinafter to be called 'the Rules') and (the Board) has held that the appeal filed by the petitioner is not maintainable. It has also been prayed in the writ petition that the order dated October 6, 1990 (Annexure 3) passed by the Assistant Colonisation Commissioner No. 2, Chhattargarh (Bikaner) (respondent No. 3) and letter dated October 16, 1990 (Annexure 4) issued by the Land Acquisition Officer cum- Assistant Colonisation Commissioner, Chhattargarh (Bikaner) in pursuance of the order Annexure 3 to Colonisation Tehsildar No.2, Chhattargarh be quashed. 2. The facts of the case may be summarised thus. The petitioner Madho Singh was allotted 44 bighas of land in Khasra No. 18, 232/56 and 232/64 situated at Chak 656 RD vide allotment order dated May 19, 1989 (Annexure 1). On October 6,1990, 22 bighas of land out of the said 44 bighas was allotted to the respondent No. 4 Khema Ram by the respondent No. 3 Against this order, the petitioner filed appeal (Annexure 5) before the Additional Colonisation Commissioner cum Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner. Application (Annexure 6) was moved by the respondent No. 4 Khema Ram before his raising preliminary objection that the appeal against the order dated October 6, 1990 is not maintainable as it has been passed by the Land Acquisition Officer. The appellate authority repelled this preliminary objection by his order dated March 16, 1992 (Annexure 7). Against this order, the petitioner filed a revision petition under Section 83, Rajasthan Land Revenue Act before the Revenue Board, Ajmer. It was allowed by its order dated September 23,1993 (Annexure 8). 3. The appellate authority repelled this preliminary objection by his order dated March 16, 1992 (Annexure 7). Against this order, the petitioner filed a revision petition under Section 83, Rajasthan Land Revenue Act before the Revenue Board, Ajmer. It was allowed by its order dated September 23,1993 (Annexure 8). 3. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Board of Revenue, Ajmer has seriously erred to hold that the order dated October 6, 1990 (Annexure 3) was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer and as such appeal against it under Rule 23 of the Rules was not maintainable. He further contended that it is clear from the order dated October 6, 1990 (Annexure 3) that it was passed by the Assistant Colonisation Commissioner No. 2, Chattargarh (Bikaner) and not by the Land Acquisition Officer and his (Assistant Colonisation Commissioner) Stamp distinctly appears on it. He also contended that the letter dated October 16, 1990 (Annexure 4) was written to the Colonisation Tehsildar No. 2, Chhattargarh in pursuance of this order (Annexure 3) by the Land Acquisition Officer cum Assistant Colonisation Commissioner, Chhattargarh (Bikaner). He lastly contended that the order (Annexure 3) allotting 22 bighas of land to the respondent No. 4 Khema Ram out of 44 bighas of land allotted earlier to the petitioner was passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, it is void and it deserves to be quashed. 4. In reply, it has been contended by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 that the order (Annexure 3) and letter (Annexure 4) have been passed and issued by the Land Acquisition Officer and as such no appeal against the order Annexure 3 was maintainable under Rule 23 of the Rules. He also contended that if it is held that the order Annexure 3 and letter Annexure 4 was passed and issued by the Assistant Colonisation Commissioner, he was out of court. The learned Government Advocate adopted the arguments of the learned counsel for the respondent No. 4. 5. It is clear from the order dated October 6, 1990 (Annexure 3) (paper No.19, 20 and 21) that it was passed by the Assistant Colonisation Commissioner, Chhattargarh (Bikaner). His stamp distinctly appears on this order. The learned Government Advocate adopted the arguments of the learned counsel for the respondent No. 4. 5. It is clear from the order dated October 6, 1990 (Annexure 3) (paper No.19, 20 and 21) that it was passed by the Assistant Colonisation Commissioner, Chhattargarh (Bikaner). His stamp distinctly appears on this order. In pursuance of this order (Annexure 3), letter No. 4138 dated October 16, 1990 (Annexure 4) was issued to Colonisation Tehsildar No. 2, Chhattargarh, Khajuwala by the Land Acquisition Officer- cum- Assistant Colonisation Commissioner, Chhattargarh (Bikaner). By mere addition of the BHUMI AVAPTI ADHIKARI with SAHAYAK UPNIVESHAK AYUKTA in the letter Annexure 4, it cannot be said that it was not issued by the Assistant Colonisation Commissioner and the order Annexure 3 was issued by the Land Acquisition Officer. It is not in dispute that a Land Acquisition Officer had nothing to do with allotment of land. The Assistant Colonisation Commissioner is-the authority for the allotment of land under the Rules. It appears from the letter Annexure 4 that the Assistant Colonisation Commissioner, Chhattargarh was also Land Acquisition Officer, Chhattargarh. By his appointment as the Land Acquisition Officer also, he did not cease to be the Assistant Colonisation Commissioner, Chhattargarh. A functionary may be empowered under different Acts to function and exercise powers thereunder simultaneously. Examples of District and Sessions Judges, Civil Judge-cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate and Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-Sub Divisional Magistrate may be given. The Board of Revenue has seriously erred to observe in para No. 7 of its order that on the face of the record it has been proved that the initial order dated October 16, 1990 was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer for the acquisition proceedings for which an independent Act i.e. Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 existed. It is not in dispute that an appeal under Rule 23 of the Rules lies against an order of allotment to the Colonisation Commissioner. As observed above, the memo of appeal (Annexure 5) was filed under this Rule before the Additional Colonisation Commissioner-cum Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner by the petitioner and it was perfectly maintainable. The Additional Colonisation Commissioner rightly repelled the preliminary objections against the maintainability of the appeal by his order dated March 16,1992 (Annexure 7). The Board of Revenue has seriously erred to set aside this order. The Additional Colonisation Commissioner rightly repelled the preliminary objections against the maintainability of the appeal by his order dated March 16,1992 (Annexure 7). The Board of Revenue has seriously erred to set aside this order. As such the order dated September 23, 1993 (Annexure 8) of the Board of Revenue, Ajmer deserves to be quashed. 6. It is not necessary in this writ petition to decide about the validity of the order dated October 6, 1990 (Annexure 3) and the letter dated October 16, 1990 (Annexure 4), of the Assistant Colonisation Commissioner, Chhattargarh as admittedly Appeal Annexure 5 was filed and it was not heard on merit on account of the order dated September 23, 1993 (Annexure 8) of the Board of Revenue, Ajmer. As this order (Annexure 8) is being quashed, the appeal is to be decided on merits. 7. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The order of the Board of Revenue, Ajmer dated September 23, 1993 (Annexure 8) is quashed. The Additional Colonisation Commissioner-cum-Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner will decide the petitioner's appeal (Annexure 5) expeditiously on merits. A copy of this order be sent to him forthwith. 8. The parties will appear before him on March 23,1994.Petition allowed. *******