Honble SHETHNA, J.–Issue notice to the respondents. (2). Learned counsel Mr.N.K.Goyal appears for Rameshwar Dass private contesting respondent no.4 on Caveat. Mr. Dinesh Maheshawri, learned counsel is directed to accept the notice for the respondents no.1,2,3, and 6. The respondent no 5. is a formal party in the matter. The respondent no.7, Megh Raj, who is a Reader to Assistant Colonization Commissioner, Chhatargarh, is joined as party respondent because of certain personal allegations levelled against him, however, a proper care can be taken for that by directing the Colonization Commissioner to make enquiry into the matter against the respondent no.7. However, his presence is not must for the adjudication of this petition. (3). Heard the learned counsel for the parties. (4). The petitioner Smt. Durga Devi submitted an application under Rule 13-A for sale of 25 bighas of land in question by special allotment Rameshwar Dass-present respondent no.4 for whom Mr. N.K. Goyal is appearing on caveat and one Chandra Prakash were two other applicants alongwith the present petitioner. As per the Order-sheet dated 30.5.98 the authority found the petitioner and the respondents no.4 and 5 eligible to participate in the auction. However, column for date was kept vacant (Annex.1). The said Order-Sheet was drawn in File No.6384/96 of Rameshwar Dass- respondent no.4. The said file was taken on Board on 11.9.98 which was adjourned to 19.9.98. On that date also, it was adjourned on account of want of quorum. However, the Order-sheet dated 26.9.98 shows that some registered notices were issued in respect of the auction and in response to that the petitioner did not remain present where as the respondents no.4 and 5 were present. The auction was held between the respondents no. 4 and 5 and the highest bid was of Rameshwar Dass-respondent no4. It was accepted. It is also stated in the said Order sheet that 35% amount (i.e. about Rs.1 lac as stated by Mr.Goyal) was deposited. After receiving the police report, the allotment order was to be issued. The auction sheet is at Annex.3 . Surprisingly, her name was shown and not only that the amount of bid was also mentioned against her name. According to the petitioner, it contained signatures of the respondent no.4 only. (5). Aggrieved of the auction sheet at Annex.3, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Additional Commissioner R.A.A. respondent no. The auction sheet is at Annex.3 . Surprisingly, her name was shown and not only that the amount of bid was also mentioned against her name. According to the petitioner, it contained signatures of the respondent no.4 only. (5). Aggrieved of the auction sheet at Annex.3, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Additional Commissioner R.A.A. respondent no. 2 on the ground that she was never served with the notice of auction as no order to that effect was passed by the Allotting Authority. From the order of R.A.A., it appears that the record was called for and from the record, it appears that the auction took place only between the respondents no.4 and 5 having signatures of the respondent no.4 only and not of the respondent no.5 on the auction sheet. It also found that the auction notice does not bear any signature of the Allotting Authority or seal of the office on it. That fact which is not in dispute is that admittedly, the Allotting Authority had never pas- sed any order of issuing notice, therefore, it was not there on the record. Considering the entire record and the contentions raised before it, the Appellate Authority allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner and remanded the case to the Allotting Authority, Chhatargarh with a direction that fresh auction notice be issued by giving one months time to all and there after the auction proceedings be held. The order passed by R.A.A. is dated 24.2.99 (Annex.4). (6). Aggrieved of the order at Annex. 4 passed by the R.A.A. the present respondent no.4 filed a revision petition before the Board of Revenue in which the petitioner had already filed caveat. It is pertinent to note that the respondent no.4 instead of filing the revision petition before the Board of Revenue at Ajmer, filed the revision petition at Jodhpur camp and obtained ex-parte stay order though the caveat was filed by the petitioner. When this fact was pointed out by the petitioner, the said order was recalled. (7).Thereafter, an application was moved on 17.6.99 by the respondent no.4 before the Board of Revenue under Section 151 C.P.C. for taking certain documents on record which was seriously objected by the petitioner. However,the Board of Revenue allowed the production of the documents for the first time in revision. (7).Thereafter, an application was moved on 17.6.99 by the respondent no.4 before the Board of Revenue under Section 151 C.P.C. for taking certain documents on record which was seriously objected by the petitioner. However,the Board of Revenue allowed the production of the documents for the first time in revision. Considering the said documents and the contentions of the parties, the Board of Revenue found that the notice for auction does not bear the signatures of the Allotting Authority and also seal of the office. However, from the certificate dated 6..5.99 issued from the office of Assistant Colonization Commissioner, the Board of Revenue held that the respondent no.7 Meghraj-Reader of the office of A.C.C. was authorised to sign the notice. The Board of Revenue was of the opinion that it was not necessary to sign the notice by the Allotting Authority and the Authority can delegate its power of signing the notice to the Reader. Accordingly, the Board of Revenue held that the notice bearing signature of the Reader instead of the Allotting Authority, without any order passed by the Allotting Authority to issue such notice was valid. Accordingly, the Single Member Shri Udai Prakash Mathur of the Board of Revenue by his common judgment dated 2.7.99 allowed the revision petition filed by the present respondent no.4 as well as one Dinesh Kumar. (8). The scope of revision petition is very narrow and limited. The Revisional Authority cannot even correct error on law committed by the lower appellate court in its revisional jurisdiction unless and until it is pointed out that the lower Appellate Court committed a jurisdictional error while allowing the appeal. Learned counsel Mr.Goyal for the respondent no.4 had gone to that extent by submitting that the powers of the Board of Revenue in revision under the Land Revenue Act is similar to the powers under Section 151 C.P.C. (9). From the impugned order at Annexure-5 dated 2.7.99 passed by the Board of Revenue, it clearly appears that the Board of Revenue committed a jurisdictional error fin exercising its revisional powers in favour of the respondent no.4. Even if two views were possible then also merely because the Board of Revenue was inclined to take a different view than the view taken by the lower Appellate Court in appeal that itself was not sufficient for the Revisional court to exercise its revisional jurisdiction. Even if two views were possible then also merely because the Board of Revenue was inclined to take a different view than the view taken by the lower Appellate Court in appeal that itself was not sufficient for the Revisional court to exercise its revisional jurisdiction. For upsetting the order passed by the Lower Appellate Court in appeal, the Revisional court has to assign solid and cogent reasons which the Revisional Authority has completely failed to do so in this case. The Board of Revenue should have borne in mind that it was not hearing a regular appeal but it was hearing a revision petition. The scope of regular appeal and revision is totally different and it is not required to be mentioned in detail. Every authority is supposed to know it. (10). On three counts the R.A.A. allowed the appeal of the petitioner and simply remanded the matter. Going through the reasons assigned by the Appellate Authority in appeal, I am of the opinion that the Revisional Authority ought not to have interfered with the said reasoning particularly when it was an order of remand. The Revisional Authority has given three reasons in paras 11, 12, and13 of the impugned order. None of them is sustainable. (11). Thus, in my opinion there was a jurisdictional error committed by the Board of Revenue in allowing both the revision petitions by its impugned common order dated 2.7.99 at Annex.5. Therefore, this court has to interfere with the same in exercise of the jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. (12). There was a serious allegation made by the petitioner that land worth Rs.5 lacs has been sold in auction in a most suspicious circumstance at half price of about Rs.2,50,000/-. The conduct of the respondent no.4. in this case in filing the revision petition at Jodhpur camp instead of filing it at Ajmer before the Board of Revenue and obtaining ex-parte interim stay is required to be condemned. The way in which both the revisions were allowed by the common impugned order at Annex.5 and that within five days of the order i.e. on 7.7.99 not only patta was issued by the Allotting Authority but also the possession of the land was also handed over to the respondent no.4 (Annex.6) speaks volumes about the conduct of the respon- dent no.4. (13). (13). In view of the above discussion, this petition is allowed. The common impugned order at Annex.5 is set aside the impugned order at Annex. 6 dated 2.7.99 is hereby quashed and set aside. As impugned order at Annex.6 handiny over the possession of land to the respondent no.4 and issuing patta is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondent no.4 shall immediately hand over the possession to the Allotting Authority. The order at Annex.4 passed by the Appellate Authority on 24.2.99 is hereby restored. The Allotting Authority as directed by the R.A.A. shall now decide the matter as per the direction issued by the R.A.A. in its impugned order dated 24.2.99. Learned counsel, Mr. Dinesh Maheshwari appearing for the Additional Colonization Commissioner assures this court that the possession of the land in question shall be taken back immediately from the respondent no.4. (14). Before parting I must state that looking to the serious allegations made against the respondent no.7 Megh Raj Reader to the A.C.C. Chhatargarh, the matter is required to be enquired into by the Colonization Commissioner. Mr. Dinesh Mah- eshwari assures this court that suitable action will be taken in the matter by the Colonization Commissioner against the respondent no.7 as early as possible.