JUDGMENT 1. :- The petitioner was the Jagirdar of Thikana Dunwa, Tehsil Deoli District Tonk and is said to had been holding a Jagir measuring 4705 acres equivalent to 7528 Bigha 3 Biswa. The Jagirs were resumed by the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952 (here-in-after called as Jagirs Act). Under the provisions of the Act, the Jagirdars were entitled to retain certain land for which an application was to be made under Section 14(1) of the Act. The petitioner is said to have made an application, copy of which has been attached as Annexure R/2/1. The application is blank except in Column 1, 2, 3 and 4, where the name of Jagirdar and the District is mentioned, including the income of the Jagirdar. The name of Jagirdar has been mentioned as Mussvirunisa Begum, Tehsil and District Tonk. Approx. total income has been mentioned as Rs. 10,000/-, place of Jagir as mentioned is Dunwa and under Column 8 the petitioner Jagirdar had mentioned that she wants the land in village or villages of Tonk only. 2. Section 18 of the Act provides maximum area of Khudkasht to be given to Jagidar. Section 16(2)(b) of the Act provides that the competent authority is empowered to allot such area of land as Khudkasht as it deems proper. Vide order dated 5.1.1989 the present petitioner was allotted a land measuring 86 Bighas and 8 Biswa in Abbas Nagar Khas and Jai Kishanpura, on the application filed by the petitioner, whicl~i area was within the limit under the Ceiling Act as is clear from Annexure-3. It is the contention of the petitioner that as per Section 18 of the Jagir Act, she was entitled for allotment of 345 Acres of land. However, in the application made by her in Annexure R/2, except mentioning her name, village and place where the petitioner wanted the land, no details whatsoever had been mentioned in regard to Jagir or the entitlement. For the reason that the petitipner wanted the land in Tonk only, the Collector as per entitlement had allotted the land of 54 Acres which was available in District Tonk. Allotment was not challenged. Her subsequent application was dismissed on 6.5.1995. For the reason that the petitipner wanted the land in Tonk only, the Collector as per entitlement had allotted the land of 54 Acres which was available in District Tonk. Allotment was not challenged. Her subsequent application was dismissed on 6.5.1995. For the reason that the petitioner was pressing for further allotment of land, the Collector, Tonk vide its order Annexure-7 dated 10.10.1995 had informed the Khudkasht Commissioner that no land was available for allotment to the petitioner. The Khudkasht Commissioner passed an order dated 28.2.1996 (Annexure-11). 3. The Deputy Secretary to the Government, Revenue Department, vide order dated 3.7.1996 advised the Khudkasht Commissioner to decide the application of the petitioner on merits for allotment of land. Khudkasht Commissioner had informed the Revenue Department that 32.95 hectares of land was kept reserved for industrial area near Jaipur. It was further informed that the petitioner had already been allotted 86.08 Bighas of land as per entitlement and the order had been passed on 28.2.1996 rejecting the contention of the petitioner. Order Annexure R/3 was also passed in this regard. Even though some land was available, but that had been given to RIICO vide order dated 17.12.1996. The petitioner is challenging the order dated 28.2.1996 and 10.10.1996. 4. Section 18 provides the maximum area of Khudkasht to be allotted to the Jagirdars. Section 19 provides categories of land that may be allotted as Khudkasht which reads as under:-19. Categories of land that may be allotted as Khudkasht (1) The following categories of land only may, if available, be allotted as khudkasht under this Chapter in the order mentioned below namely: (i) land surrounded by tenants, (ii) land abandoned by tenants, (iii) land which was under the personal cultivation of the Jagirdar for a continuous period of five years immediately preceding the agricultural year 1948-49 and which during or after that year was given on lease for a fixed term and such lease would have terminated before the date of the application under section 14 but for the provisions of the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance, 1949, unless Khatedari rights have accrued to the tenant under any law during the term of such lease; (iv) xxx (iv) culturable unoccupied land within the jagir. (v) land of the nature specified in clause (i), (ii) or (v) above in vicinity of the village or villages in which the jagir lands of the jagirdar are situate; (vi) land commanded by the Bhakra or Chambal Project or by the Jawai Bund or by any other irrigation Project provided that the allotment of such land as Khudkasht shall be on such concessional terms and conditions as may be prescribed; (vii) xxx (vii) any culturable unoccupied land, other than jagir land, which in the opinion of the Collector is not required as pasture land or as land set apart for the collection for drinking water in any tank for the villages surrounding it. (2) Where no land of any of the categories specified in sub-section (1) is available, the application for allotment of khudkasht shall be rejected.' 5. Sub-section (2) specifically provides that where no land of any of the categories specified in sub-section (1) is available, the application for allotment of khudkasht shall be rejected. 6. Section 19A provides the exchange of lands by Jagirdar if application is made within six months of the date of notification isused under Section 21. Section 21 provides that the Government may by notification in the Rajasthan Gazette appoint a date for the resumption of any class of jagir lands. Section 22 provides the consequence of resumption wherein the rights, title and interest of the Jagirdar and of every other person claiming through him in his jagir lands, shall stand resumed to the Government free from all encumbrances. 7. In the present case, even though no application was made within limitation for allotment of land, but the Deputy Secretary vide order dated 20.8.1988 (Annexure-2) had passed an administrative order to the effect that even though the jagirdar had put in his application on 26.11.1966 and the application was dismissed being beyond limitation in the year 1974 by the Jagir Commissioner, but still had ordered that the application of the Jagirdar be considered within limitation. It is not known as to why and under what circumstances and under what powers, the Deputy Secretary (Administration) had interfered in the quasi-judicial order passed by Jagir Commissioner, but still, vide an administrative order, he had directed that the application be treated within limitation which admittedly was not within limitation. It is not known as to why and under what circumstances and under what powers, the Deputy Secretary (Administration) had interfered in the quasi-judicial order passed by Jagir Commissioner, but still, vide an administrative order, he had directed that the application be treated within limitation which admittedly was not within limitation. In view of the order passed by the Deputy Secretary (Admn.), vide Annexure-2, the District Collector had allotted the land to the petitioner to the extent of 86.08 Bighas on 5.1.1989. After 5.1.1989 (Annexure-3) the petitioner neither agitated the matter nor, had filed any appeal or revision and it was after about 6 years that she applied to allot certain land situated in village Keshwana Rajput, Tehsil Kotputli, where it is said that some land was available. Even, though one certificate of Tehsildar was also attached to the effect that the land was available in that village; the District Collector, Tonk made a report that no land is available in district Tonk vide order Annexure-7 on 10.10.1995. The Khudkast Commissioner, vide Annexure-8 dated 16.10.1995 had asked from District Collector, Jaipur to the effect whether there was any objection for allotting the land in Jaipur District in village Malpura and Keshwana. The Collector, Jaipur, vide Annexure-10 objected to such allotment and also passed an order Annexure-11 stating therein all the facts. The Collector in Annexure-11 had mentioned that even though the Jagirdar had not applied within limitation and had applied only on 26.11.1966 which was not entertained for being beyond limitation, an application was moved before the Government to allot the land and the Government, through Deputy Secretary Revenue had directed the Commissioner to treat the application as to be within limitation, and after treating the application to be within limitation, the petitioner was allotted a total land of 54 Acres on 5.1.1989. It is stated that the petitioner had put up an application for allotment of further 135 Bighas of land in village Keshwana and Malpura of district Jaipur. It is stated by the Collector in Annexure-11 that enquiry was made in this regard and the Collector had recommended that the land could not be allotted to the petitioner. In Annexure-11 the Khudkasht Commissioner had passed an order that the petitioner had already been allotted the land measuring 86 Bighas on 5.1.1989 under Section 16 of the Act which also violates the limitation of the Ceiling Act. In Annexure-11 the Khudkasht Commissioner had passed an order that the petitioner had already been allotted the land measuring 86 Bighas on 5.1.1989 under Section 16 of the Act which also violates the limitation of the Ceiling Act. It was further observed that the permissible land under Section 18 of the Jagir Act was not available in the District of Tonk. The Commissioner Khudkast had observed that the application moved by the petitioner was neither an appeal nor it had been moved under any of the provisions of the Act. If the petitioner was aggrieved, he should have filed an appeal against the order dated 5.1.1989 and only moving an application after about six years on the administrative side does not confer any quasi-judicial power on the Khudkast Commissioner. However, still the Khudkast Commissioner, vide Annexure-11 came to a finding that even though the earlier order dated 5.1.1989 was not challenged, but still the land already allotted to the petitioner was beyond the Ceiling law and for the reason that no appeal was filed by the petitioner against the order of the District Collector dated 5.1.1989, therefore, no interference was called for. 8. The petitioner still wanted that the very precious and valuable land lying near Kotputli in the above two villages, Keshwana and Malpura be allotted to her, which was reserved land. Even the Deputy Secretary (Admn.) had been writing to the Commissioner Khudkasht, a quasi-judicial authority under the Jagir Act, to consider the case of the petitioner for such allotment and that is why a prayer has been made in the writ petition to the effect that the respondents be directed to abide by the orders of the State Government passed through the Deputy Secretary Administration on 20.8.1988, 3.7.1996 and 8.10.1996 and the ordes Annexure-11 and 15, passed on 28.2.1996 and 10.10.1996 be quashed. 9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, in my opinion, no case is made out for interference in any manner or even for giving any direction or for quashing the impugned orders Annexure-11 and 15. 10. At the outset, I am pained to opine that the Deputy Secretary (Admn.), without passing any speaking orders, perhaps was showing favour to the petitioner in directing the respondent Commissioner Khudkasht, a quasi-judicial authority to treat the application of the petitioner within limitation which application was admittedly against the provisions of law. 10. At the outset, I am pained to opine that the Deputy Secretary (Admn.), without passing any speaking orders, perhaps was showing favour to the petitioner in directing the respondent Commissioner Khudkasht, a quasi-judicial authority to treat the application of the petitioner within limitation which application was admittedly against the provisions of law. Section 14 of the provisions in Chapter IV of the Act, provides that a Jagirdar, who on the first day of July, 1954, does not hold any Khudkast or who on such date holds Khudkast less in area than the maximum area specified in Section 11, may not later than the thirty first day of August, 1958 or within three months of the date of resumption whichever is later, apply to the Collector or to the Commissioner Khudkast land for allotment of Khudkast land and every such application shall be made in the prescribed form. Admittedly, the application was to be made before 31st day of August, 1958. Section 14 reads as under:Section 14 : Application for allotment of Khudkast : (1) A Jagirdar, who on the first day of July, 1954, does not hold any Khudkast or who on such date holds Khudkast less in area than the maximum area specified in Section 11, may not later than the thirty first day of August, 1958 or within three months of the date of resumption whichever is later, apply to the Collector or to the Commissioner for Khudkast land for allotment of Khudkast. 11. Every such application shall be in the prescribed form and shall be signed and verified in the manner provided in the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (Act V of 1908) for the signing and verification of plaints. 11. The application was moved in November, 1966, i.e. after about 8 years of the prescribed limit, which was dismissed by the Khudkast Statutory Authority in May, 1974 for being beyond limitation, but the Deputy Secretary (Admn.), vide its order dated 20.8.1988 (Annexure 2), directed the Commissioner to treat the application within limitation, how and under what provisions of law the Deputy Secretary (Admn.) had exercised such powers, is not known. I must say that the exercise of such powers was unwarranted and beyond jurisdiction and that too, when the said petitioner-Jagirdar does not seem to have preferred any appeal. I must say that the exercise of such powers was unwarranted and beyond jurisdiction and that too, when the said petitioner-Jagirdar does not seem to have preferred any appeal. If the Jagirdar was aggrieved against the order passed in May, 1974 for dismissing the application on the point of limitation, she had have a right to file an appeal against such order under Section 39 wherein appeal is provided to the Commissioner from the order of the Collector within sixty days and to the Board etc. from the order of the Commissioner by the party aggrieved. The very first order, directing by the Deputy Secretary (Admn.) vide annexure-2 to treat the statutory dismissal of the case on the point of limitation to be within limitation on administrative side, was void and without jurisdiction. The Collector acted on Annexure-2 and allotted the land measuring 86.08 Bighas to the petitioner. The petitioner seemed to be satisfied, but still after about six years of such order Annexure-3, again raked up the matter by making an application Annexure-R/2 and once again, the Deputy Secretary (Admn.) vide order dated 3.7.1996 and 8.10.1996 had intimated to the Khudkast Commissioner, a statutory authority under the Jagir Act, to consider the case of the petitioner for allotting the land in village-Keshwana and Malpura, Tehsil-Kotputli, Dist.-Jaipur, copy of which has been attached as Annexure-13 and similar is the effect of order dated 8.10.1996 (Annexure-14), wherein the Deputy Secretary had given a direction to the District Collector, by overruling the objection of the District Collector to the effect that the land now being asked is an industrial land and direction had been given to consider the case of the petitioner for allotment of such industrial land in district-Jaipur. All the three orders of the Deputy Secretary (Admn.) i.e. Annexure-2, 13 and 14 were beyond his powers and jurisdiction and in violation of Section 14 in regard to limitation and Section 19 of the Jagir Act. 12. Time and again, the Collector, Tonk had informed that no more land is available in district-Tonk and, as such, no application could have been made and if made it should have been rejected. However, there is no provision to the effect that Jagirdar is to choose the land of his own choice. 12. Time and again, the Collector, Tonk had informed that no more land is available in district-Tonk and, as such, no application could have been made and if made it should have been rejected. However, there is no provision to the effect that Jagirdar is to choose the land of his own choice. Here, in the present case, the Jagirdar-petitioner is pressing for allotment of land falling in industrial belt in district-Jaipur, which has been rejected by the Collector and the Khudkast Commissioner, but still the Deputy Secretary (Admn.), without any statutory powers, for the reasons best known to him, is recommending, time and again, to accommodate the petitioner. This action of the Deputy Secretary (Admn.) is nothing but a naked misuse and abuse of the executive powers, which have not been vested in him under the Jagir Act. 13. Even though, the petitioner could not have been allotted the land as per annexure-3 as his (her ?) application was beyond limitation, but for the reason that on the illegal intervention of the Deputy Secretary (Admn.), vide Annexure-2 and without jurisdiction the application rejected on judicial side was ordered to be accepted on administrative side by the Deputy Secretary (Admn.) and the land was allotted, but still the land, once having been allotted illegally was not challenged, the petitioner should have felt satisfied. Without any authority and even contrary to the provisions of the Act, after six years of such allotment as per Annexure-3, the petitioner has moved again for allotment of more land in the industrial area in Jaipur district. No such application is permissible, that will amount to total violation of the statutory provisions of the Act. Annexure-11 and 15 cannot be interfered with. There is no authority with the Deputy Secretary (Admn.) to give any direction to the statutory quasi judicial authority and to give any further direction for allotment of land, contrary to the provisions of the Act. No such direction as given in Annexure-2, 13 and 14 could have been given by the Deputy Secretary (Admn.) and, as such, the prayer of the petitioner to abide by such direction, is totally untenable. 14. The petitioner had not filed any appeal or revision against the order Annexure-3. No such direction as given in Annexure-2, 13 and 14 could have been given by the Deputy Secretary (Admn.) and, as such, the prayer of the petitioner to abide by such direction, is totally untenable. 14. The petitioner had not filed any appeal or revision against the order Annexure-3. Only on the representation, the Commissioner had passed the order-Annexure-11 and the Commissioner himself had observed that no such application was maintainable, but still he passed a speaking order rejecting the application. Nothing wrong can be found in the order of the Commissioner. 15. The writ petition has no merit and deserves to be dismissed. 16. Before concluding, I feel it my duty to caution that the Deputy Secretary (Admn.) should not pass any direction to the statutory or quasi-judicial authorities for the subjects which fall within the ambit, powers and jurisdiction of such statutory authorities. It shall be appropriate if the State Government, through Chief Secretary, does take up such matters as to give guidelines to such Deputy Secretary (Admn.) to act in accordance with law and not to pass an order on administrative side which may amount to interference in the orders passed by the statutory authority or quasi-judicial authorities.For the reasons, mentiongd above, the writ petition is dismissed with a cost of Rs. 5000/-.Petition Dismissed with costs of Rs. 5,000/-. *******