Honble SINGHAL, J. – The present writ petition has been filed against the order of the Board of Revenue dated 20.6.1980 by which the order of the Collector dated 2nd Sept. 1975 regarding demolition of construction and imposition of penalty was set- aside. (2). The facts of the case are that Kota was declared first class mandi under the Rajasthan Colonisation (Sale of Land in Mandies in the Chambal Irrigation Project Area) Rules, 1960. The Mandi Committee was constituted and a plot having number 11-B having an area of 40x 60 in Vallabh Nagar, Kota was sold to one Shri Nama Lal son of Shri Rachand Mal who sold the said plot to Shri Roop Kishore Sharma. In accordance with the provisions of the Rule 24 of the said rules, the permission for construction and the sanctioned plan was given. But construction was to be completed by 25th Oct. 1957 as per the directions given on 28.10.1966 but Shri Brij Kishore sold out the plot to Shri Prahlad Das who stepped in his shoes and was bound to follow the directons. (3). Shri Prahlad Das constructed the building on the said plot and constructed room etc. in the rear set back line and latrine and bath in the side set back line of the plot. This was in contravention of the sanctioned plan, as no construction could have been carried on the rear set back according to the provisions of rule 24. The petitioner informed respondent No. 1 on 17.7.1969 to demolish the construction which was made contrary to the approved plan. Inspite of the notice, the construction work was carried on and there was no response of respondent No.1. The ma- tter was referred to the State Government under rule 27 of the Rules. The State Government delegated the power under rule 27 of the Rules to the Collector, Kota. A show cause notice was issued by the Collector Kota as well but the respondents failed to appear on that date. (4). On the opportunity being given the respondent failed to appear on the date of hearing and ultimately the Collector passed an order on 2.9.75 directing to demolish the construction so made which was to be demolished by 2.10.1975 and the petitioner was penalised with fine of Rs. (4). On the opportunity being given the respondent failed to appear on the date of hearing and ultimately the Collector passed an order on 2.9.75 directing to demolish the construction so made which was to be demolished by 2.10.1975 and the petitioner was penalised with fine of Rs. 500/- and in case the disputed construction was not demolished by 2.10.1975 the respondent No.1 was penalised by an additional penalty of Rs. 20/- per day. (5). Against the above decision, revision petition was filed before the Board of Revenue which was dismissed on 13.7.1976 in which it was held that the Board is competent to hear the appeal under rule 29 of the Rules against the order of Mandi Committee and not the Collector. Thereafter, a review petition was made which was accepted on 20.12.1976 and it was directed that the revision petition be heard on merits. The Board of Revenue came to the conclusion that the order of the Collector imposing the penalty cannot stand in view of the judgment of this court in Raghunath Prasad vs. State of Raj.(1). The revision petition was allowed on that basis. (6). Arguments of the learned counsel for both the parties have been heard and I have gone through the record of the case as well as the order passed by the Board of Revenue. The fact that there was construction contrary to the sanction plan is not in dispute. The only objection which was raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner before the Board of Revenue and also before me is that there is no such provision which empowers the State Government to levy penalty. In this regard it may be observed that the Collector Kota found that the respondents have contravened the condition No. 3 of the Deed of grant which was punishable under rule 27 and the condition No.8 of deed of grant. Rule 24 of the Rules refers to plan for construction. Under rule 27 it is provided that in case of failure by a purchaser to observe or comply with any of the foregoing rules, his deposit or the whole or a part of the price may be forfeited by the State Government who may either itself or through any officer authorised in this behalf have the property re-sold by public auction. Any deficiency of price which may result onsuch re-sale shall be made good and paid by the defaulting purchaser. Condition No. 8 of the deed of grant reads as under – ``It shall be lawful for the Govt. to impose on the grander, after due notice and after hearing him if he desires to be heard, a penalty which may extend to five thousand rupees for any breach or non-observance by the grantee of any of the rules or of the covenants herein contained and on his part to be performed and fulfilled and, in case any such breach or non-observance continues after the date on which such penalty is imposed an additional penalty which may extend twenty Rupees for every day thereafter on which such breach or non-observance continues and the amount of such penalty shall be recoverable as an arrears of land revenue. In the case of Raghunath (supra) such a situation was not existing. As a matter of fact the entire allotment could have been cancelled under rule 27 and the property could have been sold, but instead of exercising that power and depriving the respondents, the action was taken on the basis of the condition No.8. The petitioner having entered in the agreement cannot be said to be aggrieved. The order of the Collector cannot be said to be contrary to the rules because the respondents have entered into agreement. The Board of Revenue has committed an error in law in not considering the condition No.8 of the deed of grant. At no point of time the validity of condition of the deed of grant was challenged and I feel that the order of Board of Revenue suffers from error apparent on record. (7). Consequently, the writ petition is allowed and the order of the Board of Revenue dated 20.6.80 is quashed.