JUDGMENT 1. - The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 1.1.1999 (Annex. 4) passed by the Additional Commissioner, Udaipur, allowing the revision of respondent No. 1. 2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that petitioner had applied for allotment of a strip of land situated adjacent to his house and the Municipal Board, Kapasan, accepted his application vide resolution dated 14.12.1993. When the matter was sent for approval before the Competent Authority, approval was not granted vide order dated 30.6.1994. Petitioner, being aggrieved and dissatisfied, preferred an appeal before the Collector, Chittorgarh, and while accepting his appeal vide judgment and order dated 28.12.1994 (Annx. 2), the case was remanded to the Executive Officer to reconsider the matter afresh after inviting objections from the parties concerned. When the matter was re-determined, it was decided in favour of the petitioner vide order dated 9.1.1998 (Annx. 3) and the approval was accorded. Respondent No.1 Smt. Parwati Bai filed a revision before the respondent No. 2, which has been accepted. Hence, this petition. 3. Heard Mr. Govind Mathur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Lalit Kawadia, for respondent No. 1. 4. Mr. Mathur, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order is without jurisdiction for the reason that the same had been passed by the Additional Commissioner under section 300 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 and as the Act authorises only the Divisional Commissioner and it does not include the Additional Commissioner. Further, it has been-submitted that the impugned order suffers from illegality and the respondent No. 1, the revisionist, was, by no means, aggrieved from the order according approval vide order dated 9.1.1998 as there was a sufficient space of three feet width between the land in dispute and her house. 5. Mr. Kawadia, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1, has opposed the said submissions. Moreso, it has been contended by him that Civil Misc. Suit No. 36/1996 is pending regarding the same dispute between the parties before the learned Civil Judge and certain interim orders have also been passed therein. 5. Mr. Kawadia, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1, has opposed the said submissions. Moreso, it has been contended by him that Civil Misc. Suit No. 36/1996 is pending regarding the same dispute between the parties before the learned Civil Judge and certain interim orders have also been passed therein. Moreso, the land sought to be allotted in favour of the petitioner forms part of public Chowk and a portion of it was also forms a part of public way and, therefore, the said strip could not have been subjected to allotment u/R. 23 of the Rajasthan Municipalities (Disposal of Urban Land) Rules, 1974. 6. I have considered the rival submissions made on behalf of the parties. 7. The learned Additional Commissioner has not only decided the revision on the submissions made by the parties and the record available, but he had taken pains to have the spot inspection.and in the impugned order it has been specifically mentioned that if the petitioner is allotted that land and allowed to raise any construction, the respondent No. 1, the revisionist, shall be adversely affect, and width of the public way would also be curtailed, thus, it was not in the public interest to make allotment in favour of the petitioner. Moreso, a site plan has been produced which makes it clear that the house of the petitioner is in the extreme East and in the West of it, there is a big area lying vacant. In the North, there is a public way and in the South, there is a public way of only three feet in width. The land sought to be allotted to the petitioner is a part of the Chowk. I fail to understand, how the strip, carved out from the open land, can be said to be a strip available for allotment. The site plan makes it clear that the strip itself is part of the Chowk (public land) and it seems to have been carved out for extraneous consideration. How the Municipal Board, Kapasan considered it in public interest to reduce the area of public Chowk (public land), is a relevant issue. The site plan itself makes it clear that it is by no means in the public interest to allow this petition and substantial justice require that even if the impugned order is without jurisdiction, it should not be interfered with. 8. The site plan itself makes it clear that it is by no means in the public interest to allow this petition and substantial justice require that even if the impugned order is without jurisdiction, it should not be interfered with. 8. It is settled proposition of law that a writ Court should not interfere with an order even if it is without jurisdiction or nullity, if it revives a wrong order. (Vide Maharaja Chintamani Sarannath v. State of Haryana & Ors., (1994) 8 SCC 16 ). 9. Hence, the petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.Writ petition dismissed. *******