JUDGMENT 1. 1. Heard learned counsel Shri Samdariya for the appellant, Mr. L.R. Upadhaya for respondent no. 4. Respondent nos. 1, 3 and 5 have all been served before 1st March, 2007 but none has put in appearance. 2. The appellant has challenged through S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5359/90 the orders passed by Addl. Collector, Barmer dated 22.10.90 (Annex. 21) & order of Gram Panchayat dated 8.8.76. 3. The facts which are not disputed are that the plot in question was included in the personal properties of erstwhile Jagirdar Thakur Himmat Singh on resumption of his jagir on the commencement of Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1952'). List of personal properties submitted by the erstwhile Jagirdar Thakur Himmat Singh after due verification from Gram Panchayat was accepted by the Deputy Jagir Commissioner, who was the competent authority under the Act of 1952 for the purpose of recognising the personal properties of Jagirdar. Objections had been raised on the list furnished by said Thakur Himmat Singh on behalf of two persons, which were rejected. List of personal properties submitted by said Thakur Himmat Singh was verified by the then Sarpanch Ganpat Singh. The Gram Panchayat had no objection to the list of personal properties submitted by Jagirdar Himmat Singh. In view thereof, vide order dated 20.4.1967 the Deputy Commissioner (Jagir), accepted the list of personal properties submitted by Thakur Himmat Singh to be correct. Against the order of Deputy Commissioner (Jagir), Barmer, appeal was preferred by State of Rajasthan raising objection against inclusion of aforesaid property in the list of personal properties. The appeal was dismissed on 18.11.1969 and so far recognition of personal properties of erstwhile Jagirdar Thakur Himmat Singh, which was resumed under the Act of 1952 became final by the competent authority. 4. One of the said properties, which is plot in question, was purchased by the present appellant-petitioner on 26.6.1959 during the pendency of the aforesaid proceedings. The list of personal properties was submitted on 26.6.1958. 5. Subsequent thereto, notice was issued to the petitioner by Gram Panchayat that he is in illegal possession of Gram Panchayat land. 4. One of the said properties, which is plot in question, was purchased by the present appellant-petitioner on 26.6.1959 during the pendency of the aforesaid proceedings. The list of personal properties was submitted on 26.6.1958. 5. Subsequent thereto, notice was issued to the petitioner by Gram Panchayat that he is in illegal possession of Gram Panchayat land. The Gram Panchayat vide its order dated 8.8.1976 rejected the objectio of the petitioner and did not accept the correctness of the list of personal properties accepted by the Deputy Commissioner (Jagir) as affirmed by the Board and held the land to be property of Gram Panchayat and directed to be sold after excluding 42 ft. land by charging Re. 1 per sq. ft. to Laxmi Chand son of Hasti Mal. 6. Appeal against the order dated 8.8.76 was allowed by Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti, Balotra by his order dated 16.1.1978 taking note of the order of Deputy Commissioner (Jagir) and Board of Revenue and considering the report of officer-in-charge of Panchayat Samiti, Barmer and site inspection report of Gram Panchayat, Jasol. 7. Appeal against the order of B.D.O. preferred by Laxmi Chand was rejected by the Collector, Barmer on the ground that appeal was not maintainable against the appellate order and it cannot be converted into revision either. The order of Collector, Barmer dt : 26.7.78 was subjected to i writ petition no. 785/78 which was allowed by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 27.3.79 holding that though appeal was not maintainable but revision was maintainable and the Collector was directed to decide the same on merits. 8. Pursuant thereto, Addl. Collector, Barmer decided the appeal preferred by Laxmi Chand by treating it to be revision vide his order dated 22.10.90 and upheld the order of Gram Panchayat holding the land to be of Panchayat and not personal properties of erstwhile Jagirdar Himmat Singh. 9. Hence, writ petition was preferred by the appellant. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition inter alia on the assumed ground that the erstwhile Jagirdar himself was the Sarpanch. of Gram Panchayat and he himself verified his own claim to personal properties and hence whole proceedings stood vitiated and it was a case of fraud played by erstwhile Jagirdar and considering the findings recorded by the Addl. Collector and Gram Panchayat to be findings of fact declined to interfere in the matter. Hence this appeal. of Gram Panchayat and he himself verified his own claim to personal properties and hence whole proceedings stood vitiated and it was a case of fraud played by erstwhile Jagirdar and considering the findings recorded by the Addl. Collector and Gram Panchayat to be findings of fact declined to interfere in the matter. Hence this appeal. 10. We are of the opinion that order under appeal suffers from patent error; firstly there is no material on record to suggest that personal properties of Thakur Himmat Singh was verified by Thakur Himmat Singh himself. Certified copies of the verification by Panchayat shows that it has been verified by one Ganpat Singh-Sarpanch, secondly, judgment under appeal quietly ignores that order of Deputy Commissioner (Jagir) was challenged by the State Government before the Board of Revenue and the order of Deputy Commissioner (Jagir) was affirmed by the Board of Revenue and, thus it became final. Since it was an order' passed in appeal, the order of Deputy Commissioner (Jagir) merged in the order of Board of Revenue and it was an order passed through adjudicating process. 11. Under these circumstances, any officer subordinate to the Board had no jurisdiction to sit over the findings recorded by the Board of Revenue and unsettle it by re-examining the issue on its own. 12. The question of submission of list and its recognition as personal properties by erstwhile Jagirdars, whose Jagirs had been resumed is governed by special procedure provided under the Act of 1952, and the same had been so recognised, as noticed aforesaid. If any person, independent of those proceedings, claims title over the land by indicting the proceedings as fraudulent, the same could have been through a civil suit. 13. In the present case, both Gram Panchayat as well as State were party to these proceedings, Gram Panchayat by verifying the claim, and State by filing appeal. We have also noticed that assumed ground of verification of claim by Ex-Jagirdar Himmat Singh himself as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat is a non-existing material. The verification was done by one Ganpat Singh as Sarpanch. Moreover, this fact was neither raised nor enquired by anyone. 14. We have also noticed that assumed ground of verification of claim by Ex-Jagirdar Himmat Singh himself as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat is a non-existing material. The verification was done by one Ganpat Singh as Sarpanch. Moreover, this fact was neither raised nor enquired by anyone. 14. In that view of the matter, the learned Single Judge has ignored the cardinal principle of finality of adjudication on objection being raised by one of the party, who was party to the earlier proceedings and also on the ground that title could not have been decided in the manner it has been decided by the revenue authorities. 15. Accordingly, appeal is allowed. Judgment under appeal is set aside. Writ petition is allowed and impugned orders are quashed.Appeal allowed - Impugned order quashed. *******