JUDGMENT 1. - By this petition the petitioner has challenged the order of the Ceiling Authorities under the Rajasthan imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. The facts giving rise to the present petition stated briefly are that the petitioner is an agriculturist holding agricultural land, the extent of which came for consideration and adjudicated when the provisions of Chapter NIB of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 imposing ceiling on holding of agricultural land were implemented. The consideration of the holdings of the petitioner was taken up by the Sub-divisional Officer (Revenue), Sri Karanpur who came to the conclusion that the holding with the petitioner did not exceed the ceiling area applicable and therefore, by order dated 11.9.70 dropped the proceedings in ceiling case No. 79/70. Thus the proceedings came to an end by the order dated 11.9.70. The ceiling proceedings under the provisions of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act by this order acquired finality.The Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973 came into force in 1973, therefore, the proceedings were initiated against the petitioner in 1973 to ascertain the holdings of the petitioner and to find out whether the holdings exceed the ceiling limit prescribed by the 1973 Act. The Authorised Officer (Ceiling), Sri Karanpur after taking into consideration all the material on record came to the conclusion that the lands held by the petitioner are not in excess of the ceiling area prescribed under the Act. He, therefore, dropped the ceiling proceedings. 3. After about 11 years invoking the provisions of Section 15(2) of the Act of 1973 the old ceiling case No. 79/70 decided by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) on 11.9.70 was ordered to be re-opened. The limitation prescribed by Section 15 of the Ceiling Act was not taken into consideration. The proceedings were accordingly re-opened by the Additional Collector (vigilance), Sri Ganganagar and registered as case No. 128/81. Thereafter taking into consideration the judgment of this Court in Pari Devi v. State of Rajasthan, 1984 RLW 320 on an application by the petitioner the Additional Collector (vigilance), Sri Ganganagar after hearing arguments dropped the reopened proceedings on 3.6.1985. 4. After taking into consideration certain directions issued by the State Government, the Additional Collector (Vigilance), Sri Ganganagar reviewed his earlier order dated 3.6.1985 on 13.10.86 and continued the reopened case. 4. After taking into consideration certain directions issued by the State Government, the Additional Collector (Vigilance), Sri Ganganagar reviewed his earlier order dated 3.6.1985 on 13.10.86 and continued the reopened case. It is this order dated 13.10.1986 which is impugned in this petition by the petitioner. 5. It is undisputed position of law that power of review is a specific power which can be exercised only when it is duly conferred on an authority by the statute creating that authority. The power of review under the Ceiling Act is conferred by Section 25 thereof on the Authorised. Officer. This power cannot, therefore, be exercised by Additional Collector (Vigilance) for reviewing his orders under Section 15(2) of the Ceiling Act because there is no power of review with the authority exercising power under Section 15 of the Ceiling Act. 6. It has been laid down by this Court in Pari Devi's case that provisions of Section 15(2) of the Ceiling Act do not empowers the authorities to reopen an old case decided under the provisions of Chapter NIB of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. The decision to drop the proceedings in view of these provisions of law was already taken by the Additional Collector (Vigilance). It was, therefore, not possible for him to review that decision by recourse to section 21 of the Ceiling Act which empowers only the Authorised Officer with the power of review. 7. In the result the petition succeeds and is allowed. The proceedings reopened by the order dated 13.10.86 are quashed. There will be no order as to costs.Writ Petition Allowed. *******