Judgment Rajesh Balia, J.—This appeal has arisen in the following circumstances. 2. The appellant had filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction and to correct entries in land record accordingly, claiming himself to be a tenant in cultivatory possession since before Samvat 2002, that is to say, before commencement of Rajasthan Colonization Act, 1954 or Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. He also pointed out that since the land in question was part of erstwhile Jaisalmer State of which no revenue record is available, therefore, he is not able to place on record any revenue record of the anterior period. 3. The Assistant Commissioner, Colonization, Kolayat, who was then conferred with the power of Collector under Sec. 2(1) of the Rajasthan Colonization Act, 1954 for allotment of land, considering such application under the relevant notification by his order dt. 27.04.1987 accepted the claim of the appellant, his suit was decreed vide order dt. 27.04.1997. Consequently, petitioner’s name was entered in land record. 4. The State of Rajasthan was party to said proceedings and was duly represented by the Colonization Tehsildar, who in his written statement has claimed that the applicant was not in possession of the land in question. On the basis of the evidence led before the Assistant Commissioner, Colonization, he found that the long cultivatory possession of the applicant is proved and therefore, he was recorded as ‘gair khatedar’ tenant. 5. It appears that in the year 1993, an ex-parte order was passed against the petitioner by the Deputy Commissioner, Colonization, IGNP, Bikaner on 22.09.1993 considering the aforesaid decree to be contrary to law and record and the matter was referred to the Board of Revenue purporting to be in exercise of power under Sec. 232 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. 6. Apart from other contentions, the petitioner had raised an objection that the Deputy Commissioner, Colonization was incompetent on 22.09.1993 to exercise power under Sec. 232 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1954 to make any reference to the Board of Revenue. It was pointed out that vide notification dt. 19.01.1997 issued under Sec. 6 of the Rajasthan Colonization Act, power of Collector to make reference under Sec. 232 to the Board of Revenue in any matter arising in the colony area was specifically conferred on Commissioner, Colonization. It was pointed out that vide notification dt. 19.01.1997 issued under Sec. 6 of the Rajasthan Colonization Act, power of Collector to make reference under Sec. 232 to the Board of Revenue in any matter arising in the colony area was specifically conferred on Commissioner, Colonization. On this premise, it was urged by the learned counsel that in any matter arising in any colony area the power to make reference under Sec. 232 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act vested exclusively in the Commissioner, Colonization. Therefore for that purpose the Deputy Commissioner, Colonisation could not have made a reference. 7. The Board of Revenue was of the opinion that since vide notification dt. 17.10.1978, issued under Sec. 6 of the Rajasthan Colonization Act, the Dy. Commissioner, Colonization, Bikaner was conferred with the power of Collector under Rajasthan Colonization Act to try and hear suits, appeals and applications arising under Rajasthan Tenancy Act and be notification of 1992, the notification dt. 17.10.1978 was not superseded, the Dy. Commissioner, Colonization continued to exercise the powers of Collector under Sec. 232 also, therefore, the reference made by him was competent. Reference was accepted on merit. 8. Aggrieved with the order of the Board of Revenue dt. 11.02.1997 accepting the reference made by Dy. Commissioner, Colonization. SB Civil Writ Petition No. 845/2003 was preferred. 9. The learned Single Judge referred to notification dt. 17.10.1978, conferring the power of Collector on the Dy. Commissioner, Colonization and taking note of general hierarcy of the authorities under the Colonization Act held that the Dy. Commissioner, Colonization was competent to make a reference to the Board of Revenue and consequently, the petition was dismissed. Hence this appeal. 10. The scheme of the Rajasthan Colonization Act reveals that while separate provisions have been made in respect of acquisition of interest in or allotment of lands in the colony area, no separate provisions were made for trying/settlement of the disputes arising therunder. Section 5 was enacted where under it was provided that except as otherwise provided under the Act of 1954, the laws relating to agricultural tenancies, land, the powers, duties, jurisdiction and procedure of the revenue Court, shall, in so far as may be, applicable apply to the tenancies held and to the proceedings conducted under the Act of 1954. 11. Section 5 was enacted where under it was provided that except as otherwise provided under the Act of 1954, the laws relating to agricultural tenancies, land, the powers, duties, jurisdiction and procedure of the revenue Court, shall, in so far as may be, applicable apply to the tenancies held and to the proceedings conducted under the Act of 1954. 11. Apparently, setting up the revenue Courts and there respective jurisdictions, powers and procedures were not provided under the Colonization Act but these matters were to be governed by Rajasthan Tenancy Act and Rajasthan Land Revenue Act. 12. So far as Sec. 2(i) defines “Collector” it is only for the purposes of powers conferred on the Collector under the Colonization Act. Merely by dint of any officer being Collector for the purpose of Colonization Act, he could not exercise general powers enjoyed by a Collector under Rajasthan Tenancy Act or Rajasthan Land Revenue Act or other law relating to agricultural tenancies. Therefore, a Collector, who is not Collector of the District, which is also a definition of the Collector under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, but who is deemed to be Collector in terms of powers conferred under Sec. 2(i) of the Act of 1954, cannot automatically be considered as Collector for the purposes of conducting trial and hear suits, appeals and applications in respect of any revenue dispute arising in the Colony area under Rajasthan Tenancy Act or Rajasthan Land Revenue Act. It is for that reason Sec. 6 was enacted in the following terms:- “6. Investing Colonisation Officers with powers of Revenue Courts.-The State Government may, by order published in the Official Gazette, invest any officer appointed for colonization of the Colony with all or any of the powers of a Revenue Court or officer, other than the Board of Revenue, for the purpose of trying and hearing all or any specified classes of applications suits or appeals arising in a colony.” 13. Thus, it is by dint of the Notification issued under Sec. 6 of the Colonization Act only any officer of Colonization Department could be invested with the powers of the Revenue Courts, excepting the power of Board of Revenue, with all or any of the powers for the purposes of trying or hearing of all or any class of applications, suits and appeals arising in a colony area. 14. 14. We may notice that until an amendment was made by Rajasthan Act No. 12 of the 1983, inserted w.e.f. 05.08.1980, the power to try and hear applications under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act or Land Revenue Act by any revenue Court could not be conferred on officers of the colonization department. Therefore, the conferment of power of a Collector in terms of sub-Sec.(i) of Sec. 2 of the Act of 1954 by its own force does not confer on such officer of the colonization Department the power of Collector as a revenue Court under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. 15. Significantly, it is also not necessary that whenever the State Government decides to confer powers of a revenue Court on any officer under the Colonization Department then it must confer all the powers of the revenue Court but this conferment of power could be confined to some aspects only. 16. Be that as it may, the question that has arisen before us in the light of two Notifications issued by the State Government in exercise of the powers conferred under Sec. 6 of the Colonization Act is whether in terms of Notification dt. 17.10.1978 power of Collector to make a reference under Sec. 232 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act was at all conferred on Dy. Commissioner of Colonization and if so, whether as a result of specific conferment of power under Sec. 232 for making a reference to the Board under Sec. 232 on Commissioner, Colonization any other officer, already entrusted with such power was deprived of such authority. In other words whether Notification dt. 15.01.1992 results in suppression of Notification dt. 17.10.1978 to the extent of conferment of Collector’s power under Sec. 232 on Dy. Commissioner, Colonization, if said Notification included conferment of power under Sec. 232 exercisable by the Collector. 17. The notification dt. In other words whether Notification dt. 15.01.1992 results in suppression of Notification dt. 17.10.1978 to the extent of conferment of Collector’s power under Sec. 232 on Dy. Commissioner, Colonization, if said Notification included conferment of power under Sec. 232 exercisable by the Collector. 17. The notification dt. 17.10.1978 was in the following terms: ßjktLFkku ljdkj jktLo (mifuosÓku) foHkkx Øekad % Q- 4(4) jkt-@mi@78t;iqj fnukad 17-10-1978 vf/klwpuk jktLFkku mufuosÓku vf/kfu;e] 1954 (1954 dk jktLFkku vf/kfu;e la- 27) dh /kkjk 6 }kjk iznÙk ÓkfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq;s rFkk bl foHkkx dh vf/klwpuk la[;k l-i- 4(7)jkt@mi@73 fnukad 11-10-1974 dks vfrf"Br djrs gq;s jkT; ljdkj ,rn}kjk blesa mikc¼ pj.kksa ds LraHk 2 esa mYysf[kr mifuosÓku vf/kdkfj;ksa dh LraHk 3 esa of.kZr viuh viuh vf/kdkfjrk ds Hkhrj jktLFkku dkÓrdkjh vf/kfu;e] 1955 (1955 dk jktLFkku vf/kfu;e 3) rFkk Hkw&jktLo vfèkfu;e] 1956 (1956 dk jktLFkku vf/kfu;e 15) ds v/khu jktLFkku ugj ifj;kstuk {ks= ds Hkhrj mifuosÓku esa mn~Hkwr gksus okys ekeyksa lacaf/kr dysDVj rFkk Hkw&vfHkys[k vf/kdkjh dh Ókfä;k¡ fofufgr djrh gS%& lkj.kh Ø-la-vf/kdkfj;ksa ds inukeçknsfÓkd vf/kdkfjrk 1-mik;qä] mifuosÓku] rglhy (mifuosÓku) {ks= jktLFkku ugj ifj;kstuk]1- chdkusj chdkusjA2- yw.kdj.klj 3- iwaxy 4- NÙkjx<+ la- 2 eq[;ky; [kktwokyk 5- dksyk;r la- 1] 2] 3] 4 2-mik;qä] mifuosÓku] rglhy (mifuosÓku) {ks= jktLFkku ugj ifj;kstuk]1- Jhfot;uxj Jhfot;uxjA2- vuqix<+ 3- ?kM+lkuk eq[;ky; vuqix<+ 4- NÙkjx<+ la- 1 eq[;ky; NÙkjx<+ 3-mik;qä] mifuosÓku] rglhy (mifuosÓku) {ks= jktLFkku ugj ifj;kstuk]1- jkorlj lwjrx<+A2- uksjaxnslj eq[;ky; guqekux<+ 3- guqekux<+ 4- lwjrx<+ ua- 1] 2] 3 5- jk;flaguxj eq[;ky; lwjrx<+ jkT;iky ds vknsÓk ls] g- Ókklu lfpoÞ 18. Thereafter, the notification dt. 15.01.1992 was published which reads in the following terms: ^^vf/klwpuk la[;k i-4 (6) mifu- 91] tuojh 15] 1992-&jktLFkku mifuosÓku vfèkfu;e 1954 (1954 dk jktLFkku vf/kfu;e la[;k 27) dh /kkjk 6 ,oa jktLFkku dkÓrdkjh vfèkfu;e] 1955 (o"kZ 1955 dk vf/kfu;e la[;k 3) dh /kkjk 232 ds }kjk iznÙk Ókfä;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, jkT; ljdkj mifuosÓku {ks= ds fy;s jktLFkku dkÓrdkjh vfèkfu;e ds varxZr jsQjsUl djus dh Ókfä;k¡ mifuosÓku {kS= ls lEcfU/kr ekeyksa esa mifuosÓku vk;qä] bfUnjk xk¡/kh ugj ifj;kstuk chdkusj dh ftyk dyDVj ds d`R;ksa dk ikyu djus ds fy;s ,rn~}kjk vf/kd`r djrh gS** (Published in Raj. Gaz. 1 (Ku) – Dt. 13.02.1992 Page 967). 19. Apart from the aforesaid two notifications, other relevant provisions which need to be considered is Sec. 232 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. 20. Gaz. 1 (Ku) – Dt. 13.02.1992 Page 967). 19. Apart from the aforesaid two notifications, other relevant provisions which need to be considered is Sec. 232 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. 20. However before we consider the provisions of Sec. 232, we may notice another significant aspect of Sec. 6 read with Sec. 5 of the Colonisation Act. It is that the provisions contained in Sec. 6 are devised to confer adjudicating powers vesting in any revenue Court or Officer other than the Board of Revenue to decide any lis whether by way of applications or suits or appeals. Section 6 does not envisage that all the powers vesting in various Revenue Officers or the Revenue Court under the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act or Rajasthan Tenancy Act other than adjudicating powers be conferred on the officers of the Colonisation. In other words, it appears to us that the powers exercisable by any of the officers of the revenue whether under the Land Revenue Act or the Rajasthan Tenancy Act which are not of adjudicatory nature cannot be conferred by authorisation under Sec. 6. 21. Section 232 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act does not confer any power on the Collector to adjudicate upon the erroneous nature of any proceedings, order or decree passed by a Court subordinate to Collector but if only enables the Collector that if he is of the opinion that the order of the decree passed or the proceeding taken by any Revenue Court subordinate to him should be varied, cancelled or reversed, he may refer such case to the Board for adjudication. The adjudicatory power about the erroneous nature of any proceeding, order or decree vests in the Board, and the powers of Board cannot be delegated under Sec. 6 of the Act, 1954. That being the position, the conferment of power under Sec. 6 to try and hear all or any specific class of applications, suits or appeals arising in a colony does not carry with it the power of Collector under Sec. 232 which is not in the nature of deciding any issue or adjudicate the dispute but is merely for the purpose of holding an opinion to be adjudicated by the Board. The power of adjudication through trial or hearing under Sec. 232 vests in the Board and there is specific prohibition on conferment of such power of trying and hearing, which vest in the Board, about any dispute by way of application, suit or appeal, cannot be conferred on any officer of the Colonisation by virtue of Sec. 6. 22. Assuming that power of Collector to try and hear all or any specific class of application, suit or appeal include the power of Collector under Sec. 232 to make a reference to the Board and on confirment of power of Collector under Sec. 6 on the Deputy Commissioner, Colonisation vide notification dt. 17.10.1978, the question then arises is what is effect of subsequent notification dt. 19.01.1992. 23. This brings in consideration the province of Sec. 232 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act and the cognate legislation; Rajasthan Land Revenue Act of which Sec. 260 is relevant. Section 232 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act reads as under:- “232. POWER TO CALL FOR RECORD AND REFER TO THE BOARD.- The Collector may call for and examine the record of any case or proceeding decided by or pending before any revenue Court subordinate to him for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of the order or decree passed and as to the regularity of the proceeding, and, if he is of the opinion that the order or the decree passed or the proceeding taking by such Court should be varied, cancelled or reversed, he shall refer the case with his opinion thereon for the orders of the Board and the Board shall, thereupon, pass such orders as it thinks fit: Provided that the power conferred by this Sec. shall not be exercised in respect of suits or proceedings falling within the purview of Sec. 239.” 24. Section 232 by itself does not envisage any officer other than the Collector, as defined in Rajasthan Tenancy Act, has the power to call for and examine record of any case or proceedings decided by or pending before any authority subordinate to him and he alone if satisfied that order or decree passed or the proceeding taken by such Court should be varied, cancelled or reversed, he may make reference to the Board. Section 232 does not provide for exercise of powers under it by any person other than Collector by authorising him in this behalf. It does not read as ‘Collector or any other officer so authorised’ in this behalf. 25. Section 232 by itself does not envisage that the power to call for record and refer it to the Board to be exercised by the Collector can be delegated either by himself or by State Government authorising somebody else to discharge the function of Collector under Sec. 232, unless there is some other provision which can be invoked. 26. So far as the Rajasthan Tenancy Act is concerned, it does not empower the State Government to appoint any other person other than the Collector to discharge the functions of Collector under Sec. 232. Moreover, it also does not envisage exercise of power under Sec. 232 concurrently by two or more authorities in respect of same subject matter within the territorial jurisdiction of Collector. 27. The only other provision which has been brought to our notice under which the law authorises that the functions of any officer under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act can be conferred on any other officer or authority appointed under the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act or the Rajasthan Tenancy Act or for that matter under any other Act, is Sec. 260 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act. 28. Section 260 (1) (b) of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, which is relevant for the present purposes, reads as under: “260 Delegation.-(1) The State Government may, by notification in the official gazette- (a) ———————————— (b) direct that any duties imposed and powers conferred by this Act or the rules made thereunder or by any other law for the time being in force or the rules made under such other law on any officer or authority appointed or constituted under this Act or the rules made thereunder shall, to the exclusion of such officer or authority, be performed and exercised by any other lawfully appointed or constituted officer or authority specified in the notification, whether such other officer or authority shall have been appointed or constituted under this Act or the rules made thereunder or under any other law for the time being in force or the rules made under such other law, or (c) ———————————— (d) ————————————” 29. Primary condition is that the officer whose functions can be delegated under Sec. 260 must be such functions which are to be discharged by a revenue officer governed by the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act. Section 260 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act enables the State Govt. that it may direct that any duties imposed and power conferred by the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act or Rules framed thereunder shall, to the exclusion of any such officer or authority, be performed and exercised by any other lawfully appointed or constituted officer or authority specified in the notification. The two provisions read together alongwith Sec. 5 of the Colonisation Act, which extends the applicability of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act and Rajasthan Tenancy Act to the Colony Area governed by the Rajasthan Colonisation Act, which makes it trinity of cognate legislations, may enable the State Government to empower any officer of the Colonisation Department to discharge the functions of Collector under Sec. 232 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act in respect of order passed by any Revenue Court or Officer subordinate to Collector in terms of Section 232 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act by dint of Sec. 260(1) (b) of Rajasthan Land Revenue Act. But the scheme of Sec. 260 of Rajasthan Land Revenue Act clearly postulates the exclusive character of the conferment of power. That is to say the conferment of power under Sec. 260 on any authority other than the one prescribed under the parent legislation is to be exclusion of such power by any other authority. This fortifies our conclusion that under the Scheme of Sec. 232 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act and the Colonisation Act, exercise of such power in respect of same matter concurrently by more than one officer is ruled out. 30. Considered in this light, if it be taken that power of Collector under Sec. 232 cannot be conferred on an officer of Colonisation department in exercise of powers under Sec. 6, but it can be so conferred in exercise of power under Sec. 260 of the Land Revenue Act, the notification in this regard may not become bad for want of describing wrong provision of law under which such power of Collector has been conferred on any officer. But on such conferment of power under Sec. 232 on any officer, any other officer erstwhile exercising the power of Collector in that area shall cease to exercise powers under Sec. 232 and the person notified to exercise power under Sec. 232 shall hold exclusive power to make a reference under Sec. 232 thereafter. 31. On general principles also even if the notification dt. 17.10.1978 is considered that conferring general powers of Collector include power of making reference under Sec. 232 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, on specific Notification conferring on the Commissioner, Colonisation vide notification dt. 15.01.1992 power to exercise power of Collector under Sec. 232 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, any other officer hitherto exercising power under Sec. 232 of the Act of 1955 shall cease to exercise such power and officer specifically authorised to exercise power of Collector under Sec. 232 shall have the exclusive power to make a reference in respect of any proceedings or orders or decree passed by any revenue Court or authority subordinate to Collector, both on the principle that there being no room for having more than one authority to exercise power of supervision in respect of same subject matter under the provisions of all the three enactments as well as on the principles that subsequent conferment of specific power in the authority, which includes exercise of such power by an authority who was conferred generally the powers of Collector, to be exercised by officer of Colonisation Department to try and hear all the applications, suits or appeals, as well as on principle that when there is conferment of general authority, subsequent conferment of specific authority on another officer, the specific authorisation contained in subsequent notification shall exclude the application of general authorisation made earlier. 32. In this connection, reference may be made to Craies on Statute Law that where a later enactment affects the same purpose as in earlier one by repetition of its term or otherwise it impliedly supersedes the earlier enactment. 33. Viewed from this angle, since issuance of notification dt. 15.01.1992 any other authority has ceased to exercise power to make reference to the Board under Sec. 232 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act in the Colony Area. 34. In view of the aforesaid conclusion, the reference made by Deputy Commissioner, Colonisation must be held to be incompetent. 35. 33. Viewed from this angle, since issuance of notification dt. 15.01.1992 any other authority has ceased to exercise power to make reference to the Board under Sec. 232 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act in the Colony Area. 34. In view of the aforesaid conclusion, the reference made by Deputy Commissioner, Colonisation must be held to be incompetent. 35. No other provision has been brought to our notice under which Board could have exercised its jurisdiction to set aside the decree passed in favour of petitioner-appellant by the Assistant Commissioner, Colonisation empowered to act as Sub Divisional Magistrate vide order dt. 27.04.1987 could be interfered by the Board. 36. Moreover, we find that the decree passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Colonisation, Kolayat on 27.04.1987 was founded purely on the basis of appreciation of evidence in the presence of State representative, who had ample opportunity to lead evidence to the contrary. The power of superintendence or revising the orders of trial Court cannot be used merely for the purpose of arriving at a different finding of fact on appreciating evidence when party aggrieved against the decree had ample opportunity to challenge those findings by way of appeal. There are no extra ordinary reasons to get over the findings of fact by appreciating evidence through exercise of extra ordinary power. 37. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. Judgment under appeal is set-aside. Consequently, writ petition is allowed and order of Board of Revenue dt. 11.02.1997 and Deputy Commissioner, Colonisation dt. 22.09.1993 are hereby quashed. There shall be no order as to costs.