HALDEA, Member – This special appeal has been filed under Section 10 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1955 (hereinto referred as the Act) against judgment dated 22.1.1997 of Revenue Board, Single Bench (Member: Shri J.K. Sachdeva) passed in revision no : 29/1980. (2). Briefly stated the facts of the case are that Sub Divisional Officer, Hanumangarh vide order dated 21.5.1985 allotted land bearing kila No. 4, 6, 7, 14, 15, 17 in chak 51 MGG situated in pathar No. 122/256 measuring three bighas fourteen biswas to the appellant. Aggrieved by this order the Municipal Council, Hanumangarh, filed an application under Section 151 CPC before the Sub Divisional Officer alleging that the said allotment was illegal and against the Rules. After hearing both parties and on the basis of records the Sub Divisional Officer concluded that the allotment was made against the Rules as provided in the Rajasthan Colonisation (Bhakra Project Government Lands, Allotment & Sale) Rules, 1955 and therefore cancelled the allotment vide his order dated 27.5.1986. The respondent filed an appeal before Revenue Appellate Authority (R.A.A.), Ganganagar against the above order. The Appellate Court accepted the same vide order dated 2.1.1990 on the ground that at the time the order was passed the presiding officer was also holding charge of the post of Administrator, Municipal Council and therefore he was not empowered to decide the case, and that since the Municipal Council had filed an appeal on the same matter before the Revenue Appellate Authority the presiding officer was barred from reviewing his own decision. The respondent filed a revision before the Board, which was accepted by the Single Bench, vide judgment dated 22.1.1997. The present special appeal has been admitted against the above order. (3). Learned counsel for the appellant in his arguments pointed out the following factors : (1) As per provisions contained in Section 86(2)(i) no order can be reviewed if an appeal has been filed against the same. In this case the respondent filed an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, which was pending in view of which the Sub Divisional Officer was barred to decide the case. In this regard he drew our attention to AIR (SC) 1970, page 1273. (2) In the appeal memo presented before R.A.A. date of knowledge has been shown as 7.7.1984 while in the revision petition before the Board if has been shown as 17.8.1984. In this regard he drew our attention to AIR (SC) 1970, page 1273. (2) In the appeal memo presented before R.A.A. date of knowledge has been shown as 7.7.1984 while in the revision petition before the Board if has been shown as 17.8.1984. (3) One of the grounds for accepting the revision filed by the respondent was that the land was reserved for public purpose but such reservations are valid only if the same are notified. In this case there was no notification setting apart the disputed land for public purpose. In this regard he drew our attention to RRD 1996, page 616. (4) The Sub Divisional Officer was also the administrator of the Municipal Council and since the latter was an affected party he could not have decided this case. (5) The appellant was not given opportunity of hearing before the order cancelling his allotment was made. (6) In revision such allotments should not be cancelled after a lapse of so many years. On this issue he drew our attention to the ruling given in RRD 1993, page 596. This factor is, all the more relevant since the appellant is a person below poverty level. (4). The counsel for the respondent stated in her arguments pointed out that the allotment had been made without following the provisions contained in Rules 5 and 6 of the Rules, 1955. On this ground itself it is evident that allotment has been obtained by fraudulent means. In such cases the courts/officers can recall a case for examination. In this regard she drew our attention to AIR (SC) 2000, page 165. At the time of allotment the land was entered in revenue records as being reserved for public purpose (bhagan) in view of which it was not free for allotment for agricultural purposes. (5). On behalf of State, the Government counsel pointed out that it is substantiated on the basis of records that the allotment was made in violation of the provisions contained in Rules 5, 6 & 7 of the allotment rules and therefore when this came to light before the Sub Divisional Officer, he rightfully cancelled such an illegal allotment. In addition no substantive question of law has been proved which justifies any interference in the order of the Single Bench. (6). Points raised during argument have been considered and relevant files and provisions of law have been examined. (7). In addition no substantive question of law has been proved which justifies any interference in the order of the Single Bench. (6). Points raised during argument have been considered and relevant files and provisions of law have been examined. (7). The scope of special appeal is very limited. The objective of providing this avenue is to enable the Board to examine whether revisionary jurisdiction was exercised properly. The question whether the judgment of the Single bench was illegal, void or without jurisdiction has to be seen. In other words, the Board has to examine if there has been contravention of substantive law. The scope of special appeal is, therefore, restricted and cannot exceed the revisionary powers of the Board. Regarding revisionary powers the Honourable Supreme Court has held as quoted in AIR (SC) 1964, page 497 that the errors contemplated for purpose of revision relate either to breach of some provision of law (illegality) or to material defects of procedure affecting the ultimate decision (material irregularity), and not to errors either of fact or of law after the prescribed formalities have been complied with. We have examined this case in the light of the above observations. (8). We have gone through the judgment of the Single Bench. The Member has addressed the points raised by the counsel for the appellant as indicated at (1), (3) and (4) in the preceding paras. No illegality can be said to have been committed in deciding these issues. Regarding the contention of the counsel for the appellant that the date of knowledge has been shown differently, we feel this factor cannot be considered at this stage. Moreover there is no document on record of either the subordinate courts or the Board to verify that the respondent had indicated a different date of knowledge in his appeal memo before the R.A.A. The contention raised that the appellant was not heard is also not a substantive question of law to be examined in special appeal. However from the record of the lower court it is proved that the appellant was given an opportunity of hearing. On the question raised that an allotment should not be cancelled after such long lapse of time, we have looked at the ruling given in RRD 1993, page 593. However from the record of the lower court it is proved that the appellant was given an opportunity of hearing. On the question raised that an allotment should not be cancelled after such long lapse of time, we have looked at the ruling given in RRD 1993, page 593. The case in the ruling concerned a matter where the land had been allotted to the party on temporary basis after which he had been cultivating the land for many years. In this case as indicated in the order of Sub Divisional Officer as per report obtained from the Tehsildar the possession of the land had not been handed over to the appellant. No evidence to the contrary has been submitted before the Appellate Court or the Board. This citation, therefore, does not apply in this case. On the question that the Single Bench has erred in concluding that the Sub Divisional Officer was competent to decide the application in spite of the pending appeal, we have looked at the ruling given in AIR (SC) 2000, page 1165 wherein the Honourable Supreme Court has held that under Section 151 CPC no court is powerless in recalling its own case if there is a matter of fraud or misrepresentation. From perusal of the allotment file we find the allotment has been made on the application of the appellant without following the procedure laid down in Rule 5, 6 & 7 of the Rajasthan Colonisation (Bhakra Project Government Lands, Allotment & Sale) Rules, 1955. (9). Taking into consideration the facts stated above, we find that no jurisdictional lapse has been committed by the Single Bench in passing its judgment dt.22.1.1997. In view of the above, the special appeal is dismissed. (10). Pronounced in the open court.