Honble ARVIND, M.—This is a second appeal under section 76 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 against the judgment dated 22.2.2005 passed by learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Hanumangarh. 2. Briefly, the facts of this case are that the land situated in Chak 20 K.S.P. Stone No. 118/327 Kila No. 16 to 19 area 4 bighas and 22 to 24 area 4 bighas, Ka L.L. Stone No. 119/327 Kila Nos. 3 to 8 area 6 bighas, 13 to 25 area 13 bighas Command, L.L. stone No. 118/328 Kila No. 2 to 8 area 8 bighas adn 11 to 24 area 14 bighas, 25/1.00 total = 23 bighas uncommand total 50 bighas land was sold without permission of the District Collector. Originally the land was purchased in auction by the respondents Kashi Ram and Sahi Ram. An agreement was reached for sale of this land to Duni Chand and a power of attorney was also given to Roop Ram. There is a registered deed for the agreement. A power of attorney was also given for maintenance etc. and taking legal action and for making any transfer of the disputed land to Shri Roop Ram. Later on the power of attorney was cancelled but after the cancellation of the power of attorney sale deed was executed in favour of Dunichand. On 12.2.1970 this sale deed was executed by Kashi Ram and Sahi Ram on the grounds that once the power of attorney had been cancelled, there was no right to the agent to sell the land without permission of the principal. A suit by the respondents No. 1 and 2 was put up in the cut of learned Asstt. Collector which was decreed. The learned Revenue Appellate Authority upheld the decree. A suit by the respondents No. 1 and 2 was put up in the cut of learned Asstt. Collector which was decreed. The learned Revenue Appellate Authority upheld the decree. Litigation continued upto the Board of Revenue and the Honble High Court and the Board of Revenue ordered as under: **ifj.kkeLo:i vihy vihykFkhZx.k Lohdkj dh tkrh gSA jktLo vihy vf/kdkjh guqekux<+ dk fu.kZ; ,oa fMØh fnukad 13-12-1983 o lgk;d ftyk/khk guqekux<+ dk fu.kZ; ,oa fMØh fnuakd 30-5-1983 fujLr fd;s tkrs gS vkSj ;g r; fd;k tkrk gS fd fooknkLin c;ukek fnukad 12-2-1970 dks voS/k ?kksf"kr ugha fd;k tk ldrk vkSj ljnLr oknhx.k jsLiks.Ms.V fooknxzLr Hkwfe ij dCtk izkIr djus ds eqLrfgd ugha gSA ewy nkok lgk;d ftyk/khk guqekux<+ dks bl funsZk ds lkFk ykSVk;k tkrk gS fd bl fu.kZ; ds vuqlkj os ewy nkos dk QSlyk dksyksukbZtsku ,DV dh /kkjk 13¼2½ esa ftl izdkj dk QSlyk fd;k tkos mlds vuqlkj djs vFkkZr~ ;fn vihykFkhZx.k o jsLiks.Ms.V nwyhpUn dks foØ; fnukad 12-2-1970 dk fu;eu vknsk izkIr gks tkrk gS rks nkok [kkfjt fd;k tk;sxk vU;Fkk ughaA** (D.B. Judgment dated 21.5.1985) 3. The order of the Board of Revenue was upheld by the Honble High Court by the order dated 7.7.2000. The operating part is as under: "In view ofthe admitted facts that third party Duly Chand etc. had no notice of termination of agency, the judgment and order of learned Board of Revenue does not warrant any interference. The force of argument on behalf of contesting respondents cannot be gain-said. Shri Ojha, while placing reliance upon sec. 308 of the Act, in my opinion, appears to be on terra firma." 4. After the confirmation of the decision of the Board by the Honble High Court this whole dispute was squeezed to the only issue of regularisation under section 13-A. It was open to the purchasers that in case they were able to get the sale regularised then the decree issued in favour of Kashi Ram and Sahi Ram will be deemed as cancelled and in case regularisation is not possible then the suit will be termed as decreed. On an application learned Additional Collector Hanumangarh ordered that since the sale had already been regularised by the order of Collector vide its order dated 30.1.1980 and as such the sale is accepted as regularised. On an application learned Additional Collector Hanumangarh ordered that since the sale had already been regularised by the order of Collector vide its order dated 30.1.1980 and as such the sale is accepted as regularised. Appeal against this order was made to learned Revenue Appellate Authority by Kashi Ram and Sahi Ram, the respondents No. 1 and 2, and learned Revenue Appellate Authority cancelled the order of learned Additional Distt. Collector. Second appeal was made to the Board of Revenue and the Board of Revenue by its order dated 10.12.2003 and 17.12.2003 remanded the matter to learned Additional Collector, Hanumangarh for re-examination of the matter under section 13-A of the Colonisation Act, 1956. Learned Additional Collector by his order dated 8.3.2004 ordered to regularise the sale and application under section 13-A was accepted. Appeal against the order was made before learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Hanumangarh who by his order dated 22.2.2005 cancelled the order of learned Additional Collector, Hanumangarh. Aggrieved against this order of learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Hanumangarh dated 22.2.2005, this is a second appeal before us. 5. Arguing in support of the appeal, the contention of the learned advocate on behalf of the appellants is that section 13-A of the Rajasthan Colonisation Act has been deleted by notification of the State Government and as such there is no need of even regularisatino of the matter because this matter is pending in appeal before the Board of Revenue and appeal is continuity of the original matter in the issue and any amendment made by the Government during the pendency of the litigation is expected to influence the matter in issue. He alternately argued that the sale was regularised by learned Additional Collector in the year 1980; hence there was no need of regularisation of the matter under section 13-A but in obedience of the order of the Board of Revenue an application for that purpose was made and that application was accepted by the learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Hanumangarh and regularisation fee was deposited and Sanand was issued after acceptance of the compounding fee. He also argued that the purchasers have moved in the shoes of Duni Chand and as such they are entitled to regularise or making any application. He also argued that the purchasers have moved in the shoes of Duni Chand and as such they are entitled to regularise or making any application. He also argued that the issue regarding the cancellation of power of attorney and the affect on the third party has been settled in the decision of the Board of Revenue. It has been upheld by the Honble High Court as such the scope of decision of learned Revenue Appellate Authority was limited upto section 13-A only of the Colonisation Act but he has without any relevance dragged this issue to sections 29 and 30 of the General Colony Conditions of 1955. Once learned Distt. Collector has regularised this sale, this issue has become irrelevant. He also argued that learned Revenue Appellate Authority has not logically concluded the matter and has discussed the matter which are not relevant in this case and he has given no proper reasons for cancellation of the permission granted under section 13-A by the learned Additional Collector. General Colony Condition No. 29 and 30 have been wrongly interpreted by the R.A.A. We are very much bonafide residents of Rajasthan but this issue cannot be raised at this stage after the decision of the Honble High Court. He also argued that learned Additional Collector has discussed all the issues at length and has finally concluded that there are no grounds for refusing the permission under section 13-A. As such the order of learned Additional Collector dated 8.3.2004 and 11.3.2004 for issue of Sanand may be upheld and the order of learned Revenue Appellate Authority dated 22.2.2005 may be set aside. 6. Arguing against the petition the contention of learned advocate on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2 is that the earlier permission given by the learned Distt. Collector in the year 1980 is not relevant because at that time there was no requirement of permission under section 13-A. The provisions of section 13-A came into existence in the year 1984 and as such the order of learned Distt. Collector dated 30.1.1980 is not relevant in this matter and the appellants can get no benefit out of the order of learned Distt. Collector dated 30.1.1980. Collector dated 30.1.1980 is not relevant in this matter and the appellants can get no benefit out of the order of learned Distt. Collector dated 30.1.1980. he also argued that application was not properly made as was required by the Board of Revenue and the application which was not required by the Board of Revenue and the application which was not supported by an affidavit had just to be ignored. Application was not made by Duni Chand but the application was made by Devraj. The appellant Devraj was not entitled to make an application before learned Additional Collector, as such this application was supposed to be ignored and learned Additional Collector went beyond his jurisdiction while passing the order on the application which was not given by Dunichand, the original purchaser. He also argued that the appellants belonged to Punjab and they are not bona fide residents of Rajasthan and in view of the rules existing they are not entitled to get permission under section 13-A. He also argued that no proper evidence has been produced regarding the appellants that they are not bona fide residents of Rajasthan. 7. Having heard both the parties and having perused record and having studying the decision of the Honble superior courts, the undersigned comes to the following conclusions: (1) That by the order of the Board of Revenue dated 21.5.1985, the issue was squeezed on one point. It was ordered that in case the purchasers are able to get their case regularised under section 13-A, the decree passed by Asstt. Collector and upheld by learned Revenue Appellate Authority would be treated as cancelled; hence the matter to be decided at this stage is whether the permission under section 13-A has been properly given by the Additional Collector or not or whether learned Revenue Appellate Authority has rightly cancelled the order of learned Distt. Collector. (2) It is admitted fact that the learned Distt. Collector issued orders for regularisation of the sale by his order dated 30.1.1980 and the subsequent orders of both the Additional Collectors found that this order could not be ignored. The legal position in this case is that once the permission was granted by the Distt. Collector on 30.1.1980 the benefit accrued to the parties cannot be withdrawn unless a specific appeal against that order is made. The legal position in this case is that once the permission was granted by the Distt. Collector on 30.1.1980 the benefit accrued to the parties cannot be withdrawn unless a specific appeal against that order is made. The respondents have failed to mention whether they have got this order challenged before any competent authority. The impugned order of learned Additional Collector dated 8.3.2004 is logically concluded and also puts reliance on the order of learned Distt. Collector dated 30.1.1980 and this order or regularisation has attained finality. (3) Section 13-A has been excluded by a notification in the year 91 but since this being an old matter under section 13-A still remains relevant. The appellants have deposited the compounding fee and have obtained a Sanad. The intention of the legislature is to get a regularisation fee and put certain restrictions and intention is not to deprive the purchasers from their holdings. In view of this background the order of learned Additional Collector is just and proper. (4) The issue of condition No. 29 and 30 can be raised in the manner it has been discussed by the learned Revenue Appellate Authority. The Honble High Court has upheld the order of the Board. It is also relevant to mention that the condition of restrictions for sale to a person outside the state were imposed in the year 1984 and they are not applicable in this case because the sales preceded to those restrictions. (5) The subsequent purchasers have moved in the shoes of the original purchaser. It is also relevant to mention that the condition of restrictions for sale to a person outside the state were imposed in the year 1984 and they are not applicable in this case because the sales preceded to those restrictions. (5) The subsequent purchasers have moved in the shoes of the original purchaser. This issue was raised before Honble S.B. of the Board and it was decided as under: **geusa ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; fnukad 7-7-2000 ,oa jktLo e.My ds fu.kZ; fnukad 21-7-1985 dk voyksdu fd;kA bu fu.kZ;ksa ds voyksdu ls ;g Li"V gS fd U;k;ky; us u dsoy nqyhpUn dks cfYd orZeku vihyk.V dks Hkh ;g funsZk fn;s gS fd os /kkjk 13, ds rgr cspku ds fu;eu djkus dk izkFkZuk i= izLrqr dj dk;Zokgh dj ldrs gSA bu fu.kZ;ksa ds voyksdu ls foks"k :i ls ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; ds voyksdu ls orZeku jsLiks.Ms.V dk ;g rdZ lkjghu gks tkrk gS fd bl Hkwfe dks mudh vksj ls muds eq[R;kj Jh :ipUn dskqjke dks cspus dk vf/kdkj ugha FkkA ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; us bl nyhy dks foLr`r foospuk djrs gq, bls vLohdkj fd;k gSA tgka rd vknsk fnukad 30-1-1980 dh oS/krk dk izu gS orZeku vizkFkhZ us bl vknsk dks dHkh pqukSrh ugha nh gS blfy, jktLo vihy vf/kdkjh }kjk vius fu.kZ; esa bl vknsk dks izHkkoghu ,oa kwU; ?kksf"kr fd;k gS tks U;k;laxr ugha gSA^^ (6) The order passed by learned Revenue Appellate Authority regarding the sale and eligibility of the purchaser is largely in contravention of the findings of the Honble Bench of the Board of Revenue and as such the order of learned Revenue Appellate Authority is ineffective upto the extent of contravention to the decision of the Honble S.B. as referred above. (7) The order of learned Revenue Appellate Authority does not logically explain the grounds on which he cancelled the order of learned Additional Collector. The order of learned Addl. Collector has been cancelled largely on technical grounds. Justice has to take a priority over technical matters presented in a pedantic manner. 8. In view of the discussions above, this appeal is accepted, the order of learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Hanumangarh dated 22.2.2005 is set aside and the order of learned Additional Collector, Hanumangarh dated 8.3.2004 and 11.3.2004 are upheld, and the appeal is accepted. Pronounced.