JUDGMENT 1. :- The present writ petition has been filed by petitioners questioning the legality and validity of the order impugned dated 7.5.1992, Annexure-5 to the writ petition, passed by Board of Revenue recalling and reviewing its earlier order dated 16.8.1991 passed in Ceiling Appeal No. 451/1985. 2. The brief facts which are relevant for just decision of the present writ petition, are that ceiling proceedings were dropped against Narsingh son of Shri Gulab Singh, on 25.5.1975 by the Authorised Officer, Baran. On 29.5.1975 the State Government reopened the case and directed the Additional Collector, to re-examine the case in the light of the order of the State Government. The Additional Collector in his judgment dated 29.10.1985 held that Narsingh was holding 268 Bigha 7 Biswa of land and there are 30 members in his family. The Additional Collector declared 94.37 standard acres as surplus land in his order dated 29.10.1985, a certified copy whereof is filed along with writ petition and it is marked as Annexure-1. 3. Aggrieved against the order dated 29.10.1985, passed by Additional Collector, the present petitioners filed an appeal before the Board of Revenue, which was partly allowed on 25.9.1989, holding 9.7 standard acres of land as surplus land of the petitioners. A certified copy of the order dated 25.9.1989 is filed and marked as Annexure-2 to the writ petition. 4. Perusal of record reveals that aggrieved against partly allowing appeal by Board of Revenue on 25.9.1989, the petitioners filed a review petition before it, which was allowed vide order dated 16.8.1991 holding no surplus land of the petitioners, a copy whereof is filed and marked as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. Perusal of the order dated 16.8.1991, Annexure-3, further reveals that the proceedings against the petitioners under Ceiling Act were dropped. 5. It is transpired from perusal of Annexure-4 dated 20.1.1992 that Board of Revenue realised its mistake and illegality crept in its judgment dated 16.8.1991, Annexure-3 and decided to rectify it in exercise of its suo moto powers after hearing both the parties. 5. It is transpired from perusal of Annexure-4 dated 20.1.1992 that Board of Revenue realised its mistake and illegality crept in its judgment dated 16.8.1991, Annexure-3 and decided to rectify it in exercise of its suo moto powers after hearing both the parties. It is apparent on the face of record from perusal of Annexure-5 to the writ petition that Board of Revenue on 7.5.1992, arrived at a conclusion that its decision in review dated 16.8.1991, is illegal, being inconsistent to the decision rendered by Supreme Court reported in AIR 1978 SC 1209, therefore, it thought it proper to recall its order of review dated 16.8.1991 in exercise of its suo moto powers. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the orders impugned. It is urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners Shri Govardhan Bardar that the order impugned dated 7.5.1997, passed by Board of Revenue, is without jurisdiction. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that after deciding appeal on 25.9.1989, and review application on 16.8.1991, the Board of Revenue becomes functus officio. The aforesaid arguments raised by Shri Bardar, learned counsel for the petitioners, are vehemently opposed by the Deputy Government Advocate, Ms. Rekha Dhakar, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3. It is urged by her on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 that Board of Revenue has jurisdiction to pass such order within the meaning of section 86 of Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, wherein it is clearly provided that Board of Revenue, of its own motion, or on application of a party to a suit or other proceeding, may review and may rescind, alter or confirm any order made by itself or by any of its members. There is substance in the argument of Ms. Rekha Dhakar. It is held that after deciding appeal on 25.9.1989 and review application on 16.8.1991, the Board of Revenue has suo moto powers to reopen the case to rectify its earlier orders and also to make it in consonance with the decision rendered by the Supreme Court, reported in AIR 1978 SC 1209. 7. Rekha Dhakar. It is held that after deciding appeal on 25.9.1989 and review application on 16.8.1991, the Board of Revenue has suo moto powers to reopen the case to rectify its earlier orders and also to make it in consonance with the decision rendered by the Supreme Court, reported in AIR 1978 SC 1209. 7. I am of the view that decision rendered by the Supreme Court, which is noticed in the impugned order dated 7.5.1992 by Board of Revenue, being precedent under Article 141 of the Constitution of India itself, is sufficient to recall its earlier orders, passed in appeal and review. Besides being precedent under Article 141 of the Constitution of India, the Board of Revenue is under legal obligation to act in aid of the Supreme Court-pronouncement as contemplated under Article 144 of the Constitution of India. Here in the present case, if the Board of Revenue was objectively satisfied that its earlier orders in appeal and review, are inconsistent to the decision rendered by the Supreme Court then it was incumbent upon it to recall its earlier orders passed in appeal and review. I am of the view that Board of Revenue has committed no error in recalling its earlier order dated 25.9.1989 in appeal and order dated 16.8.1991 passed in review, in exercise of its suo moto powers within the meaning of Section 86 of Rajasthan Land Revenue Act. 8. It is next contended by learned counsel for petitioners that even if it is conceded for argument's sake that Board of Revenue has jurisdiction to recall its earlier orders in exercise of its suo moto powers under section 86 of Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, even then, it ought to have been exercised within 90 days from the date of passing of the order as envisaged under clause (iii) of sub-section (2) of Section 86 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, which reads thus: "no order affecting any question of right between private persons shall be reviewed except on the application of party to the proceedings, and no application for the review of such order shall be entertained unless it is made within ninety days from the passing of the order." 9. In my considered opinion, the limitation prescribed under section 86(2)(iii) of Rajasthan Land Revenue Act 1956, is confined only to those cases where power of review of Board of Revenue is invoked at the instance of a party by moving an application and secondly the dispute is confined between private individuals not against State and others. I am of the view that under the Land Revenue Act, no limitation is prescribed for exercise of suo moto power of review by Board of Revenue, to save the land of public utility or land vested in State provided suo moto power vested in it is invoked within reasonable period after giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties. Reasonable period for exercise of suo moto power by Board of Revenue can not be defined by adopting a cast iron formula but it depends on facts of each case. In the present case, Board of Revenue has exercised its suo moto power within reasonable time after giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties. Therefore, I decline to quash such order in writ jurisdiction. 10. It is a matter of common knowledge and this Court also takes judicial notice of the fact that State is an impersonal machinery and if the land of public utility or land vested in State is lost, then no individual would suffer, only it will cause inconvenience and loss to the public at large. To my mind, to arrest such situation, the Board of Revenue being the highest court on revenue side, has been invested with suo moto power to review and recall its. earlier order, to save land of public utility or land vested in State. 11. I am of the view that order impugned dated 7.5.1992 does not cause any prejudice to the petitioners. The learned counsel for the petitioners failed to demonstrate before this Court, what prejudice would be caused to the petitioners, if the Board of Revenue, after hearing both the parties proposes to decide the appeal on merits, in accordance with law. The petitioners have no vested right to take advantage of technicalities in the present case. It isj well-settled principle of law that if technicalities are pitted against substantial justice, court of law has to see that substantial justice should neither escape, nor slide. The petitioners have no vested right to take advantage of technicalities in the present case. It isj well-settled principle of law that if technicalities are pitted against substantial justice, court of law has to see that substantial justice should neither escape, nor slide. Courts of law are respected not because it has jurisdiction to legalise injustice, but the people used to respect courts of law, having implicit faith in it that the courts are capable to do justice between parties. In the present case, I am satisfied that by impugned order dated 7.5.1992, recalling its earlier orders, passed in appeal and review, by Board of Revenue, material justice has been done between the parties, therefore, I decline to make the order impugned, Annexure-5, dated 7.5.1992, ineffective, by issuing a prerogative writ of certiorari. I decline to allow illegality crept in the judgment of Board of Revenue to perpetuate for all time to come between the parties relating to land where right, title and interest of State is involved. To my mind interference with the order impugned dated 7.5.1992 in the present case would tantamount to allow to perpetuate the illegality crept in the judgment of Board of Revenue which would be anathema to the constitutional philosophy enshrined under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.Consequently, the instant writ petition is hereby dismissed and the order passed by Board of Revenue dated 7.5.1992, Annexure-5, is hereby affirmed, with a direction to Board of Revenue, to decide the appeal, expeditiously, on merits in accordance with law, after giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to bear their own costs.Petition Dismissed. *******