JUDGMENT 1. :- By this appeal Jhulelal Charitable and Educational Trust challenges the order of learned single Judge dated 25-2-1999 passed in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5143/93 (reported in AIR 1999 Rajasthan 309). The appellant was allotted land measuring 100 x 100 in Nimbahera District Chittorgarh. By exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 30 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959, on the application of respondent No. 4, the Addl. Divisional Commissioner, Udaipur called for the records of the Municipal Board, Nimbahera and cancelled the allotment of land made to the appellant. The appellant being aggrieved by the order of the Addl. Divisional Commissioner, Udaipur filed a writ petition in this Court inter alia on the ground that revisional power was exercised beyond the period of limitation and the land was allotted in conformity with rules. 2. The writ petition was rejected by the learned single Judge. The learned single Judge while rejecting the writ petition came to the conclusion that no period of limitation was prescribed for exercising revisional jurisdiction by the Revisional Authority. The learned single Judge also noticed that the land in question was earmarked for educational purpose. It is not disputed that the appellant did not apply for allotment of land for establishing an Educational Institution. 3. Learned single Judge also noticed that the reserved price of the land in dispute was Rs. 150 per Sq. Mt. but the land was allotted to the appellant at the rate of Rs. 37.50 per Sq. Mt. for a period of 99 years. Accordingly, the learned single Judge was of the view that the price fixed by the Municipal Board, Nimbahera transgressed the provisions of sub-rule (1) of Rule 18 of the Rules of Rajasthan Municipalities (Disposal of Urban Land) Rules, 1974. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant would establish an Educational Institution on the land in question and, therefore, the learned single Judge ought not to have disturbed the allotment made in its favour. It was also submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant was ready to pay 50% of the reserve price of the land in dispute. 6. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant but we regret our inability to accept the same. It was also submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant was ready to pay 50% of the reserve price of the land in dispute. 6. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant but we regret our inability to accept the same. It is not in dispute that in the application made by the appellant for allotment of land, it was not stated that the land was required for the purpose of establishing an Educational Institution. The argument that the appellant would have established an Educational Institution on the land in question appears to be an after thought. Without receiving proper application from the appellant the Municipality was not justified in allotting the land to the appellant. The Municipality was also not justified in allotting the land to the appellant below the price envisaged by the Rules. 7. In the circumstances, therefore, the learned single Judge was entirely right in rejecting the writ petition of the appellant. We are told that while passing the revisional order, the Addl. Divisional Commissioner directed allotment of the land in question to respondent No. 4. The Addl. Divisional Commissioner passed this order in revisional jurisdiction though he was not competent to pass such an order, as basically it is the function of the Municipality to consider the question of allotment of land. Therefore, the direction of Addl. Divisional Commissioner to the Municipality to allot the land to respondent No. 4 is set aside. 8. It will be open to the appellant to file a fresh application before the Municipality for allotment of land for establishing an Educational Institution. While considering the application of the appellant, the Municipality shall also consider the application of respondent No. 4 and decide both the applications on merits by a speaking order. The order of the learned Single Judge imposing costs of Rs. 5,000/- on the appellant is set aside. 9. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of in above terms.Order accordingly. *******