JUDGMENT 1. - Since common questions of law and facts are involved in all these petitions, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The petitioners have challenged in these petitions order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority Annex. 6 dated 1-10-93 cancelling the order of allotment of the lands issued in favour of the petitioners and Annex. 7 dated 6-6-94, 30-6-94 and 24-6-94 where under the Board of Revenue has refused to entertain the second appeal against the order passed on 1-10-93 and dismissed the same as barred by limitation. 3. The brief facts are that the land bearing Khasra No. 1/1 Min. 82 and 231, total area 62 Bighas and 8 Biswas at village Jagpura adjoining the villages Suras and Bhilkhadi were used as pasture land of villages Suras and Bhilkhadi since the time of ex-Mewar state. This land is recorded as pasture land in the revenue records.The Collector, Bhilwara, vide his order dated 14-5-85 passed while exercising the powers conferred upon him by the order of the State Govt, dated 27-7-83 ordered conversion of the land in question from charagah to bilanam and also some land from bilanam to charagah of village Jagpura and accordingly the revenue records were corrected. Thereafter on 7-7-87, the Collector, Bhilwara has allotted to the petitioners different small portions of land of Khasras No. 1/1 Min. 82 and 231 at village Jagpura under the provisions of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Land for Agriculture Purposes) Rules, 1970 (for short the Rules of 1970). Respondents No. 4 to 9 have moved the Collector, Bhilwara for cancellation of the order of conversion. The application filed by respondents No. 4 to 9 was dismissed by the Collector, Bhilwara. The respondents preferred a revision challenging the order of dismissal before the Board of Revenue. The revision was allowed on 26-3-93 and the matter was remanded back to the Collector, Bhilwara for fresh consideration keeping in view rule 7(2) of the Rajasthan Tenancy (Government) Land Rules, 1955 (for short the Rules of 1955). The remand order was challenged by the petitioners by filing a review application. The review application filed by the petitioners was dismissed. After the remand, the Collector, Bhilwara set aside the order of conversion dated 14-5-85 by his order dated 6-8-93. The remand order was challenged by the petitioners by filing a review application. The review application filed by the petitioners was dismissed. After the remand, the Collector, Bhilwara set aside the order of conversion dated 14-5-85 by his order dated 6-8-93. Later on, it was brought to the notice of the Collector that the order dated 6-8-93 was not passed after giving due opportunity to all the parties concerned and he took the decision of giving opportunity to all the parties concerned and accordingly issued notice. The matter was re-heard and the order passed on 6-8-93 i.e. the cancellation of conversion of the land, was maintained by the subsequent order dated 30-8-94. The matter has attained finality so far as the question of conversion of the land is concerned. 4. Apart from the challenge to the order of conversion dated 14-5-85, respondents No. 4 to 9 have also challenged the orders of allotment made in favour of the petitioners dated 7-7-87 by moving the Collector, Bhilwara. This challenge was negatived by the Collector, Bhilwara vide his order dated 20-7-92. Respondents No. 4 to 9 preferred a first appeal against the order of the Collector. The first appeal was fixed for arguments on 23-12-92 and thereafter adjourned to 12-3-93,21-4-93 & 7-6-93. The matter was argued on 30-6-93 and fixed for judgment on 12-7-93 and further fixed on 27-7-93. On 27-7-93, an order was passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority that as the matter challenging conversion of the land from charagah to bilanam is pending consideration, the case shall be kept pending till the decision is regard to conversion of the disputed land and the case was fixed on 28-8-93. On 1-10-93 by Annex. 6, the Revenue Appellate Authority set aside the orders of allotment on the ground that the order of conversion of the land has already been set aside by order dated 6-8-93. The petitioners have challenged before the Board of Revenue, by filing second appeals the order of the Revenue Appellate Authority. The second appeals were dismissed by the Board of Revenue by orders dated 6-6-94, 30-6-94 and 24-6-94 as barred by limitation. 5. The petitioners have challenged before the Board of Revenue, by filing second appeals the order of the Revenue Appellate Authority. The second appeals were dismissed by the Board of Revenue by orders dated 6-6-94, 30-6-94 and 24-6-94 as barred by limitation. 5. The above narration of facts make it clear that the order of conversion of the land was set aside by the Revenue Appellate Authority by orders dated 6-8-93/30-8-94, which has attained finality and the order of allotment of land in favour of the petitioners was set aside by the order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority on 1-10-93 (Annex. 6).It is contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the order of allotment was set aside by the Revenue Appellate Authority on 1 -10-93 on the basis of the order dated 6-8-93 when this order did not remain in existence by virtue of the subsequent order passed by the Collector, Bhilwara on 30-8-94. It may be seen that when the order of allotment was set aside by the Revenue Appellate Authority on 1-10-93, the order dated 6-8-93 was in existence whereby the Collector, Bhilwara set aside the order of conversion of the lands dated 14-5-85 and that the order dated 30-8-94 has reiterated what has been held on 6-8-93. Therefore, on both counts the order of the Revenue Appellate Authority does not call for any interference by this Court. Besides this, there could not be allotment of land to the petitioners unless pasture land are converted, order of conversion was set aside and attained finality, consequently the lands in dispute are pasture land and could not be allotted to the petitioners. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, the petitions are dismissed. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.Petition dismissed. *******