Honble MATHUR, J.–We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the judgment of the learned Single Judge dt. 2.4.2004 dismissing the writ petition. (2). It appears that a Patta was issued in favour of Maharaja Sardul Singh of Bikaner on 21.10.1948 for the land measuring 2589 Bighas 6 Biswas in village Shiv Badi. Another Patta was also issued in favour of Maharaja Sardul Singh on 6.4.1949 for the land measuring 659 Bighas & 19 Biswas. It was mutated on 28.10.1949 and fixed as Khasra No. 83. The mutation entries were made on 28.12.1949. Maharaja Sardul Singh expired in 1950. His successor Maharaja Karani Singh transferred that land in Patta in dispute in favour of his mother Smt. Sudarshan Kumari by a registered gift deed in the year 1958 and Rajmata Smt. Sudarshan Kumari sold the various land by registered sale deeds to certain persons. With the development of City Bikaner various colonies have been developed and established including on Khasra No. 83. (3). It is alleged that the Patwari of the Halka on his own recorded Arazi Khasra No. 37 as ``Oran i.e., forest or Gochar land in Samvat year 2025-28. Thereafter in the Samvat Year 2028 the land of Khasra No. 37 was recorded in the name of ``Oran Bhomiaji dedicated to the deity. The Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner on a complaint filed by Birma Ram Choudhary examined the matter and found that on most part of the disputed land constructions had been raised and some unauthorised colonies had also been established. The second Patta which was issued in favour of Maharaja Sardul Singh on 6.4.1949, Khasra numbers were not mentioned and the same was issued for the extension of Vallabh Garden, but it was not clear for which Khasra number the Patta was issued. It was also found that in the file of Patta there was a mention of Khasra No. 83, but the plans, prepared on the back of the Patta did not indicate, if it formed part of Khasra No. 83, on the contrary, the land comprising of Khasra No. 33 was also included in the Patta and, therefore, it appeared that in the file of Patta Khasra No. 83 was wrongly mentioned and for that a correction was required to be made in the revenue record. The Divisional Commissioner by order dt. The Divisional Commissioner by order dt. 25.2.2000 directed the Collector, Bikaner to make necessary correction in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 136 of the Act of 1956. The Collector issued notice to the complainant ``Birma Ram Choudhary, but he did not appear. After hearing the parties and considering the material available on record the Collector by order dt. 6.9.2000 came to the conclusion that the Patta dt. 6.4.1949 which was issued in favour of Maharaja Sardul Singh comprises of the land of Khasra No. 33, 34, 37 and not Khasra No. 83 and, therefore, he ordered that necessary corrections to that effect be made in the revenue record. The order of the Collector has attained finality. (4). The appellant herein claiming himself to be a public spirited worker and devotee of Bhomiaji Maharaja moved an application u/S. 9 of the Act of 1956 before the Board of Revenue. The application on the grounds inter alia that the matter does not come within the purview of Sec. 9 of the Act, that the order dt. 6.9.2000 passed by the Collector has attained the finality as the same has not been challenged by way of appeal or revision before the competent authority under the Land Revenue Act more particularly when the petitioner has himself filed an application before the Collector u/O. 1 R. 10 CPC for becoming the party and the same was rejected. It was further held that the issue of personal property cannot be subject matter under the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act as genuineness of a personal property can be inquired into only by the Compensation Commissioner under the provisions of Rajasthan Land Reforms and the Acquisition of Land Owners Estate Act, 1963. The appellant challenged the said order of the Board of Revenue dt. 30.5.2001 by way of writ petition under the label of public interest litigation before this Court. A Divisional Bench of this Court refused to entertain the petition under the lable of public interest litigation. Accordingly the petition was placed before the learned Single Judge. The petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge by order dt. 3.9.2001 as withdrawn with liberty to file fresh. This way, the instant petition came to be filed. The learned Single Judge upheld the view of the Board of Revenue that the petition filed by the appellant u/S. 9 of the Act is not maintainable. The petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge by order dt. 3.9.2001 as withdrawn with liberty to file fresh. This way, the instant petition came to be filed. The learned Single Judge upheld the view of the Board of Revenue that the petition filed by the appellant u/S. 9 of the Act is not maintainable. Apart from that it was held that the order of the Collector dt. 6.9.2000 attained the finality having not challenged under the provisions of Sec. 75 of the Act of 1956. It was also found that as per the report of the Divisional Commissioner on the subject land constructions have been raised and the colonies have been developed. Thus, it was not for the public interest to permit to raise such an issue at this belated stage. Further the appellant has no locus standi to take recourse of Sec. (Sic. Art.) 226 of the Constitution of India. (5). It is contended by the learned counsel that the revenue entries of 50 years recorded in the name of ``Oran Bhomiaji a local deity could not be corrected in the name of private persons by the State authorities under the lable of Sec. 136 of the Land Revenue Act. It is further submitted that the learned Single Judge has committed error in holding that the application filed by the appellant was not maintainable before the Board of Revenue u/S. 9 of the Land Revenue Act, 1956. Reliance has been placed on a decision of the Apex Court in Surendrapal Singh vs. Board of Revenue & Ors. (1), Division Bench judgments of this Court in Mangi Lal & Ors. vs. State of Raj. & Ors. (2), & Kajod vs. Board of Revenue & Ors. (3). (6). We have gone through all the cases referred to above. None of the case has a direct bearing on the controversy involved in the instant appeal. As regards the applicability of Sec. 9, it would be convenient to read the said provisions as follows:– ``Sec. 9. General Superintendence of Subordinate Revenue Court–subject to other provisions of this Act, the general superintendence and control over all revenue Courts and over all revenue officers shall be versed in, and all such Courts and officers shall be subordinate to the Board. (7). General Superintendence of Subordinate Revenue Court–subject to other provisions of this Act, the general superintendence and control over all revenue Courts and over all revenue officers shall be versed in, and all such Courts and officers shall be subordinate to the Board. (7). The words ``subject to other provisions of this Act in Sec. 9 of the Act of 1959 have been used to limit the jurisdiction of the Board and where the alternative remedy by way of appeal, or revision etc. is available the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Board u/S. 9 of the Act of 1956 cannot be invoked. Thus, the Board of Revenue rightly held that the petition filed by the appellant u/S. 9 of the Act was not maintainable. The learned Single Judge has rightly endorsed to the view of the Board of Revenue. Further the order of the Collector, Bikaner dt. 6.9.2000 correcting the error in exercise of powers u/S. 136 of the Act of 1956 has attained the finality. In view of the order dt. 6.9.2000 passed by the Collector necessary corrections in the revenue record to the effect that the Patta dt. 6.4.1949 comprises of Khasra Nos. 33, 34 & 37 and not of Khasra No. 83 have been made. It further appears that the appellant with some oblique motive is abusing the process of the Court. (8). In view of the aforesaid, no interference is warranted with the order of the learned Single Judge. The special appeal stands dismissed summarily.