Judgment R.R. Yadav, J.-The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a relief to quash the impugned order dated 21-9-85 Annexure-5 to the writ petition passed by the Respondent No. 1 on the ground inter alia that before passing the impugned order no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner and secondly the Judgment passed by the Board of Revenue Annexure-1 after dismissal of writ petition by this Court has attained finality on all those points decided therein which cannot be permitted to be nullified or made inoperative by the impugn ed order. 2. The brief facts necessary to be noticed for disposal of the present writ petition are that the father of non-petitioner No. 2 Harbhaj was allotted disputed land by the Assistant Commissioner for Colonisation, Hanumangarh being a landless person. A complaint was mads against him wherein it was stated that he had obtained allotment of the land in question by making concealments. 3. After enquiry, the complaint was found to be true, hence the allotment made in favour of Harbhaj was cancelled by the Assistant Commissioner for Colonisation, Hanumangarh vide order dated 15-4-85. 4. Feeling aggrieved against the order dated 15-4-85, Harbhaj preferred an appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Colonisation-cum-Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner, but the same was rejected by the order dated 25-9-81. 5. Again feeling aggrieved against the rejection order dated 25-9-8 1 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Colonisation-cum-Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner, Harbhaj preferred a revision before the Board of Revenue and the Board of Revenue rejected the revision vide its order dated 30-8- 83. A certified copy of the said order passed by the Board of Revenue is filed as Ex. 1 to the writ petition. 6. Harbhaj, aggrieved against the order passed by the Board of Revenue on 3 0-8-83 preferred a writ petition before this Court which was registered as SB Civil Writ Petition No. 2042/84, Harbhaj Ram vs. Board of Revenue, and the same was rejected on 10-9- 84. 7. It is apparent from the perusal of the Judgment of Board of Revenue Exhibit-1 that the land for which Harbhaj, father of Respondent No. 2, was not found, before. Board of Revenue, entitled to have been allotted, was alternatively argued to be allotted to his major son Ram Swaroop who is arrayed as Respondent No. 2 in the instant writ petition. Board of Revenue, entitled to have been allotted, was alternatively argued to be allotted to his major son Ram Swaroop who is arrayed as Respondent No. 2 in the instant writ petition. The aforesaid alternative contention was also rejected by the Board of Revenue. 8. Thus the Judgment passed by the Board of Revenue has attained finality after dismissal of SB Civil Writ Petition No. 2042/84 by this Court on 10-9-84. 9. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner Shri S. N. Sharma and the learned Additional Advocate General Shri K. L. Jasmatia appearing on behalf of the State at length and has critically gone through the material available on record. 10. Theargument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner before me is that the impugned order is per se illegal and without jurisdiction and has been passed without affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. According to him in pursuance of allotment made in favour of the petitioner a patta was also executed and thereafter possession was delivered to him on 18-5-85 vide Ex. 4 to the writ petition. 11. It is alsourged before me by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Judgment of Board of Revenue Ex. 1 after dismissal of writ petition by this Court has attained finality on both the points as stated above which cannot be permitted to be nullified and cannot be allowed to be made ineffective and inoperative by the impugned order passed by the Respondent No. 1. 12. Apointed question was asked by the Court to the learned Additional Advocate General as to whether the impugned order can be sustained which has been passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 13. The learned Additional Advocate General being aware of catena of Judgment s on this point by the Apex Court as well as by this Court is not able to persuade me that such order could be passed by the State Government without affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. 14. In my considered opinion the law must now taken to be well settled that even in an administrative proceeding which involves civil consequences, the doctrine of natural justice must be held to be applicable to secure justice to all. 14. In my considered opinion the law must now taken to be well settled that even in an administrative proceeding which involves civil consequences, the doctrine of natural justice must be held to be applicable to secure justice to all. Thus the impugned order is liable to be quashed on this ground alone as admittedly no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner before cancelling his patta in pursuance to which he was coming in possession. 15. Here, in the present case, it is not a pure administrative action specially when the claim of father of Respondent No. 2 as well as claim of Respondent No. 2 was negatived by the Board of Revenue on 30-8-83 and the said Judgment delivered by the Board of Revenue on 30-8-83 Ex. 1 to the writ petition was undeniably confirmed by this Court in SB Civil Writ Petition No. 2042/84, Harbhaj Ram v. Board of Revenue on 10-9-84 9.16. In my humble opinion judicial restraint does not permit me to observe more than necessary except holding that the impugned order passed by the Respondent No. 1 is per se illegal and without jurisdiction and it has been passed to hoodwink the finality attached to the Judgment of the Board of Revenue after dismissal of the writ petition by this Court on 10-9-84. 10.17. It is well to remember that within the framework of our Constitution, Article 226 and Article 136 empower the High Courts and Hon’ble Supreme Court to examine the decisions of all Courts and Tribunals to see whether they have acted legally or illegally by way of judicial review. It is further to remember that power of judicial review under our Constitution by High Courts and Hon’ble Supreme Court is a basic feature of our Constitution which cannot be taken away or curtailed even by legislative enactment. The High Courts and Hon’ble Supreme Court alone can determine finally what the law of land is and all other Courts and Tribunals can pronounce with authority on an issue what is legal and what is not. 118. The High Courts and Hon’ble Supreme Court alone can determine finally what the law of land is and all other Courts and Tribunals can pronounce with authority on an issue what is legal and what is not. 118. It is apparent on the face of record that the impugned order passed by Respondent No. 1 is a simple device to ridicule the judicial pronouncement of the Board of Revenue, which has attained finality after judicial review of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India: As such, no useful purpose will be served to remand the case to Respondent No. 1 to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 119. Asa result of the aforementioned discussion and looking into the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, the impugned illegal order passed by Respondent No. 1 dated 21-9-85 Exhibit-5 to the writ petition is hereby quashed and the instant writ petition is allowed with costs. 120. The allotment of land in dispute made in favour of the petitioner and in pursuant thereof execution of patta in his favour and delivery of possession to him shall remain intact and will not be questioned since Judgment of Board of Revenue Ex. 1 has already attained finality after dismissal of the writ petition by this Court on 10-9-1984.