JUDGMENT 1. This special appeal under S. 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinances 1949 has been directed against the order dated 23-1-1984 by which the writ petition filed by the petitioners for setting aside the order dated 6-6-1981 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner (Marked as Annex. 3) and the order dated 15-12-1993 passed by the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer (Marked as Annex. 4) was dismissed. 2. The brief relevant facts of the case are that on an application submitted by respondent No. 4 Sahi Ram under the Rajasthan Colonisation (Gang Canal Land Permanent Allotment and Sale) Rules, 1956, the S.D.O. Sri Ganganagar vide his order dated 15-12-1980 allotted 24 Bighas & 4 Biswas land out of Murabba No. 64, 65 and 67 to said Shri Sahi Ram. On 19-3-1981 a deputation including some of the petitioners met the S.D.O. Sri Ganganagar. The S.D.O. Sri Ganganagar on 26-3-1981 inspected the site and after making enquiry cancelled the said allotment and vide same order dated 26-3-1981 allotted disputed land along with some other lands to the petitioners. Against the said order, Shri Sahi Ram (respondent No. 4) filed an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner. The Revenue Appellate Authority. Bikaner, vide its order dated 6-6-1981 allowed the appeal and set aside the order dated 26-3-1981 passed by the S.D.O. Sri Ganganagar and confirmed the order dated 15-12-1980 allotting the disputed land to respondent No. 4. Against the said order, the petitioners filed a revision application before the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer. The Board of Revenue vide its order dated 15-12-1983 rejected the revision application. Being aggrieved with the said orders, the petitioners filed a writ petition No. 81/84 before this court and this court rejected the same said writ petition vide its order dated 23-1-1984. This order has been challenged in this appeal. 3. We have heard Shri M.L. Garg. counsel for the appellants and Shri S. K. Vyas, Add. Govt. Advocate and gone through the record. 4. Mr. Garg, counsel for the appellants submits that Revenue Appellate Authority and also Board of Revenue erred in holding that order dated 26-3-81 passed by the S.D.O. Sri Ganganagar was not in the nature of suo motu review because the conditions mentioned in Order 47, Rule 1, CPC did not exist. Govt. Advocate and gone through the record. 4. Mr. Garg, counsel for the appellants submits that Revenue Appellate Authority and also Board of Revenue erred in holding that order dated 26-3-81 passed by the S.D.O. Sri Ganganagar was not in the nature of suo motu review because the conditions mentioned in Order 47, Rule 1, CPC did not exist. He further submits that the petitioners had no right of appeal and under these circumstances, the representation submitted to the SDO Sri Ganganagar on 19-11-1981 should be treated as review application but the Revenue Appellate Authority and the Board of Revenue and also the learned single Judge did not consider this aspect of the case properly and rejected the writ petition filed by the petitioners, in a arbitrary way. He further submits that if the order dated 26-3-1981 was passed without notice to respondent No. 4 all the aforesaid authorities should have directed the S.D.O. Sri Ganganagar to decide the review application after notice to respondent No. 4 but instead of following correct procedure they set aside the order dated 26-3-1981 and confirmed the order dated 15-12-1980. He submits that under these circumstances, the orders passed by ail these authorities and also by the learned single Judge deserve to be set aside. 5. The learned Addl. Government Advocate supported the orders passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Board of Revenue & the learned single Judge on the ground that there was no review application. He further submits that there was no error either of fact or of law and as such S.D.O. was not competent to set aside its order dated 15-12-1980. He further submits that the order dated 15-12-1980 was appealable and as no appeal was filed by any person, hence the learned S.D.O. Sri Ganganagar was not competent to set aside the same simply on the basis of representation is made by some persons including some of the petitioners. He further submits that no application for allotment of the dis-outed land was pending when the disputed land was allotted to the respondent No. 4 and as such the learned S.D.O. was not justified in setting aside allotment in favour of respondent No. 4. 6. The Revenue Appellate Authority and also the Board of Revenue were of .the view that the order dated 26-3-81 passed by the SDO Shri Ganganagar was not in the nature of suo moto review. 6. The Revenue Appellate Authority and also the Board of Revenue were of .the view that the order dated 26-3-81 passed by the SDO Shri Ganganagar was not in the nature of suo moto review. They were further of the opinion that the said order was passed behind the back of respondent No. 4 and as such said order was ab initio void. They were further of the opinion that conditions for grant of review did not exist so as to warrant review of the order dated 15-12-1980 by which disputed land was allotted to respondent No. 4. From the facts of the case, we find the, the learned SDO did not review its order dated 15-12-1980 on his own but he recalled the said order on a deputation met with him. The Board of Revenue also found that no applications for allotment of disputed land were pending when the allotment was made in favour of respondent Mo. 4. The learned Member of Board of Revenue also found that allotment was made on the basis of material on record which was available with the SDO Shri Ganganagar. The appellants failed to show what was the error apparent on the face of record which forced the SDO Shri Ganganagar to review his own order. No review application was filed before the SDO by any person. From the record also it does not appear that the SDO Shri Ganganagar himself reviewed the order of his own but from the record it appears that he, reviewed his order behind the back of respondent N o. 4 when a deputation of some persons including some of the petitioners met with him. In such circumstances, we do not find any merit in this appeal. Besides this, a period of more than 13 years has already been passed and under these circumstances, we do not want to send the case back to the learned SDO Shri Ganganagar for deciding the matter afresh after giving notice to respondent No. 4. 7. Consequently, we dismiss the appeal.Appeal dismissed. *******