Honble, SHARMA, M.—These two revision peititons have been filed under Section 23(B) of the Rajasthan Public Demand Recovery Act, 1952 (in short to be called `the Act) against the order of Revenue Appellate Authority, Hanumangarh dated 13.7.2000 passed in appeals No. 74/98 & 75/98 respectively. Since the facts and the question of law involved in both these revision petitions are of the same nature and the contensting parties are the same; hence both the revision petitions and disposed of by a single judgment. The copy of the judgment be placed separately with the files of each petition. 2. The brief facts in the above revision petitions are as follows:- The the Executive Engineer (S & I), Lift Division-I, IGNP, Rawatsar and the revision-petitioner entered into a contract dated 11.1.89 vide which the work order for the civil construction of the residential quarters and the office of the AEN was allotted to the applicant-petitioner. In spite of the repeated notices issued by the non-petitioner, the applicant could not commence the allotted work in the due time-frame. The work allotted to the revision-petitioner was got completed by the non-petitioner Department through another contractor ``at the risk & cost of the defaulter applicant petitioner. The non-petitioner Department initiated the requisition proceedings and filed the application before Collector, Hanumangarh as per procedure under the public Demand Recovery Act, 1952. The notices were issued to the applicant-petitioner by Collector, Hanumangarh. The petition filed by the applicant-petitioner denying liability was disallowed by the Additional Collector, Hanumangarh by rejecting the objections raised by the applicant and vide his decision dated 3.9.98 confirmed the demand recoverable under the Act and ordered the same to be recovered under due process of law. The applicant-petitioner preferred the appeal against the order of Additional Collector, Hanumangarh dated 3.9.98 before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Hanumangarh. The appellate Court vide order dated 13.7.2000 decided both the appeals No. 74/98 & 75/98 filed by the appellants under the LR Act by a single judgment and dismissed them. Aggrieved by the judgment passed by the R.A.A. dated 13.7.2000, the revision-petitioner has preferred these revision u/S. 23(B) of the Act before the Board on the following grounds:- 1. That the impugned order of the Revenue Appellate Authority is bad in the eye of law and against the documentary evidence available on the file. 2. That the order passed by the Addl. That the impugned order of the Revenue Appellate Authority is bad in the eye of law and against the documentary evidence available on the file. 2. That the order passed by the Addl. Collector, Hanumangarh in the appeals pending before him is beyond jurisdiction as the powers of hearing the appeals under PDR Act, 1952 vest only in the Collector. 3. That as per terms & conditions of the contract entered into between the litigating parties on 11.1.89, the site of theland for the construction was to be made available by the non-petitioner Department. Neither the site plan was made available nor any land specified for the purpose was identified and was made available to start construction and to commence the contract. 4. That the notice issued by the Collector to the applicant-petitioner on 13.3.96 was wrong and beyond the scope of law & rules. Since the contract entered into between the parties was invalid, no action can be initiated against the petitioner. 5. That any violation of the terms & conditions of the contract should have been submitted to the arbitrator for decision. 6. That applicant-petitioner has not been given opportunity to be heard and that the demand created does not fall under the category of ``public demand. 3. I have heard the arguments of learned counsels of both the parties. The learned counsel for the applicant-petitioner inter-alia has also argued that the entire process of recovery has been completed hurriedly and no aplication of mind was made either by the requisitioning authority- XEN, IGNP, Rawatsar or by the Addl. Collector, Hanumangarh who confirmed the demand recoverable under the Act. It has also been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant-petitioner that the certificate signed by the Collector u/S. 4 of the Act was not duly signed and the certification recording the satisfaction of the competent authority has not been recorded therein. It has also been argued by him that there is a discrepancy in the demand created against the petitioner. He has cited a ruling RLR 1989 page 273 with reference to clause 23 of the contract signed between the parties to be decided through arbitration. It has also been argued by him that there is a discrepancy in the demand created against the petitioner. He has cited a ruling RLR 1989 page 273 with reference to clause 23 of the contract signed between the parties to be decided through arbitration. It has been further argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Executive Engineer, IGNP (S & I), Rawatsar was himself a party to the contract; hence by creating a demand against the petitioner, he cannot be a judge in his own case. The argument was supported vide RRD 1994 page 700. 4. The learned counsels appearing for the non-petitioner No. 1 and non-petitioner No. 2 have argued at length that all the formalities prescribed under the law for recovery of public demand under the said Act have been complied with. The applicant-petitioner, in spite of repeated notices given by the competent authority, has not turned up to commence the work and since the said work was completed through another contractor due to the default of the applicant-petitioner, the above public demand in both the revision petitions have been duly created against the applicant-petitioner to make good the losses suffered by the State Govt. as the civil work defaulted by the applicant has to be carried out at the cost & risk of the defaulter as per procedure and terms & conditions of the contract. 5. I have perused the record of the subordinate courts in both the above revision petitions and considered the arguments extended by the learned advocates of both the parties. 6. It is explicity clear that although the word ``Collector appears as a competent authority in the said Act to effect the recovery of public demand through the process set therein, but the Government of Rajasthan has issued an order dated 28.2.1957 giving full powers of Collector to the Addl. Collector for disposing the case arising under this Act. This power has been exercised by the State Govt. under section 25(6) of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act; hence the argument extended by the learned Advocate for the applicant-petitioner that order passed by the Addl. Collector, Hanumangarh is beyond jurisdiction, is not maintainable. On perusal of the entire record, it is explicitly clear that the requisition u/Sec. 3(1) of the said Act and filing of the certificate u/Sec. 4 of the Act has been duly complied with. Collector, Hanumangarh is beyond jurisdiction, is not maintainable. On perusal of the entire record, it is explicitly clear that the requisition u/Sec. 3(1) of the said Act and filing of the certificate u/Sec. 4 of the Act has been duly complied with. It has been wrongly argued that the Collector did not apply his mind and could not satisfy himself for the recovery of the public demand because it is evident on the record that the Collector even took pains to satisfy himself even for small details by making enquiries from the requisitioning authority for the minute details and to make good the shortcomings in the requisition certificate. 7. This Court insisted time & again to the learned counsel for the petitioner that he should show any proof or the evidence to the effect that the applicant-petitioner has given any notice to the non-petitioner Department even for once that the Department has failed to identify the site and make the same available to him for construction. On the contrary, the non-petitioner Department has repeatedly issued notices to the applicant-petitioner to commence the work as per terms & conditions of the contract. I am also not convicted by the arguments extended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the matter should have been submitted to the arbitrator as per clause 23 for decision because any dispute arising during the pendency of the contract requires to be referred to the arbitrator and that too on the request of the contractor. In the present case, the matter is different since applicant petitioner could not even commence the work as per terms & conditions of the contract. Hence the clause 23 pertaining to arbitration is not relevant for the present case. 8. The learned appellate Court Revenue Appellate Authority, Hanumangarh has decided the appeals by discussing each & every aspect and the arguments extended by the appellant and passed a clear & speaking order. The appellate authority has minutely perused the record and has discussed in detail the evidence available on the file at length. The scope of the revision under Section 23(B) of the said Act is very limited so as to see whether the subordinate Courts have erred anywhere in the application of law or appreciation of facts on the record. 9. The appellate authority has minutely perused the record and has discussed in detail the evidence available on the file at length. The scope of the revision under Section 23(B) of the said Act is very limited so as to see whether the subordinate Courts have erred anywhere in the application of law or appreciation of facts on the record. 9. Since in the light of the above analysis & observations, I do not find any scope to interfere with the impugned order passed by the appellate authority; hence the above revisions having no substance & force, are hereby rejected. 10. Pronounced in open Court.