JUDGMENT Hon'ble TATIA, J.—An application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been submitted for condonation of delay of 607 days in Special Appeal (def) No. 4026/10. Since the other connected special appeal no. 906/09 having foundational order which is under challenge is in time therefore, in the fitness of the case, we deem it fit to condone the delay. 2. These Special Appeals are preferred against the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 10.4.2008 in SB Civil Writ Petition No. 7572/07 “Municipal Board, Kishangarh vs. Ganesh Bhoomi Sansthan & Ors. by which the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition of the Municipal Board, Kishangarh challenging the order dated 3.4.2007 passed by the Revenue Minister in the revision petition filed by the respondent no.1 Ganesh Bhoomi Vikas Sansthan. The respondent no.1 preferred the revision against the order of Collector dated 16.9.87 whereby; land of 14 bigha 11 biswas of Khasra no. 1140/2 was set apart and transferred to the then Municipal Board, presently the Municipal Council, Kishangarh. This order dated 16.9.1987 was set aside in the revision by the Hon'ble Minister. 3. The learned Revenue Minister set aside the said order dated 16.9.1987 on the ground that the land in question was purchased by the respondent no.1 in public auction conducted by the official liquidator appointed by the Company Judge in the company petition under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and same was confirmed by the order of the learned Company Judge dated 10.1.85 in the liquidation proceedings against Sumer Electricals, therefore, same land after two years could not have been set apart by the District Collector and could not have been given to Municipal Board. 4. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition of the Municipal Board, Kishangarh after considering section 83 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act of 1956) which empowers the state government to call for records of any non judicial proceedings not connected with settlement and to pass appropriate order. 5. 4. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition of the Municipal Board, Kishangarh after considering section 83 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act of 1956) which empowers the state government to call for records of any non judicial proceedings not connected with settlement and to pass appropriate order. 5. Learned Single Judge also held that in the company case the notice inviting tender was published on 19.12.84 and thereafter the sale was finalized on 10.1.85 in company petition by the order of the High Cort and the order passed by the Collector of setting apart of the land was contrary to the order of Company Judge and as such, the Revenue Minister has not committed any error in passing the order dated 3.4.2007. 6. Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. also preferred a writ petition no. 2694/08 challenging the same order passed by the Revenue Minister dated 3.4.2007 and that writ petition was decided by this Court vide order dated 2.7.2008 by which the learned Single Judge on the basis of the decision given in SB Civil Writ Petition No. 7572/07, dismissed the writ petition. 7. Learned counsel for the Municipal Board submitted that the then erstwhile Company Sumer Electricals in view of the order dated 6.4.48, copy of which is placed as Annexure R/1/1, did not deposit the requisite amount for obtaining patta of the land so as to have title vest in the said company. 8. It is also submitted that the respondent no.1 submitted an application for permission to raise construction before the Municipal Board, Kishangarh which was rejected by the Municipal Board and against that order of refusal, the respondent no.1 preferred a writ petition no. 2853/91 which is disposed of by this court on 19.2.2003 and direction was issued to the Additional Collector, Ajmer to decide the mutation appeal preferred by the respondent no.1. 9. It is also submitted that the appeal preferred by the respondent against the mutation in favour of Municipal board was dismissed by the learned Additional Collector, Ajmer vide order dated 18.6.2003. 10. 9. It is also submitted that the appeal preferred by the respondent against the mutation in favour of Municipal board was dismissed by the learned Additional Collector, Ajmer vide order dated 18.6.2003. 10. According to the learned counsel for the Municipal Board in the mutation proceedings as well as construction permission proceedings orders have been passed against the respondent no.1 and those orders have attained finality then the revisionary authority under Section 83 of the Act of 1956 had no jurisdiction to cancel the order passed by the District Collector dated 16.9.1987 by which the land in question was set apart and given to the Municipal Board, the appellant. The respondent no.1 had lost the battle in the two proceedings referred above namely; the mutation proceedings and construction permission proceedings then also the learned Revenue Minister could not have interfered in the order of setting apart of the land in question passed by the District Collector as once the order passed by the District Collector was subject matter in any judicial proceedings, then revision power under Section 83 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act could not have been exercised. 11. It is also submitted that till title is decided by the competent court of law i.e. civil court, the learned Revenue Minister should not have interfered in the order passed by the District Colllector setting apart the land in question dated 16.9.87. The learned counsel for the Municipal Board also disputed the title claimed by the Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. who is appellant in DB Special Appeal No. 906/09. 12. Learned counsel appearing for the Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. submitted that the land as vesting in the Ajmer Vidyut Vitrn Nigam Ltd. and respondent no.1 had no title to the land. 13. Learned counsel for the Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. submitted that Nigam's petition was dismissed only on the ground that earlier writ petition preferred by the Municipal Board has been dismissed by the order dated 10.4.2007. 14. Learned counsel for the respondent no.1 submitted that there is no error in the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge dated 10.4.2008 and he supported the judgment impugned in these appeals. 15. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the facts of the case and perused the orders referred above. 16. 14. Learned counsel for the respondent no.1 submitted that there is no error in the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge dated 10.4.2008 and he supported the judgment impugned in these appeals. 15. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the facts of the case and perused the orders referred above. 16. It is not in dispute that the land in question was subject matter in the company petition wherein the office liquidator was appointed by the Company Court and he was authorized to auction the properties of the Company in liquidation, the Sumer Electrical. The auction proceedings were duly conducted after publication of the notices in news papers. The learned Company Judge vide order dated 10.1.1985 after perusal of the report of the valuer and after considering the relevant facts held that the rate quoted by the Ganesh Bhoomit Vikas is higher than the value fixed by the valuer and thereafter accepted the tender given by Ganesh Bhoomi Vikas Sansthan, respondent no.1. In pursuance of order dated 10.1.85 passed in Company Petition, the registered sale deed was duly executed by the official liquidator on 27.2.85, copy of which has been placed on record as R/1/4. Neither the sale deed nor the orders passed in company petition have been cancelled till today by any court. 17. We have perused page no.7 of para 5 of the sale deed which has been referred by the learned counsel for the appellant Municipal Board wherein it has been mentioned that the purchaser respondent no.1 fully understood that the respondent no.1 will have to contest, if need be at any stage, any legal formality etc. regarding the transfer of the rights and will get mutation done in its name for which the seller obviously the official liquidator on behalf of company liquidation was not having any right on the basis of which learned counsel for the Municipal Board tried to submit that the title of the Sumer Electricals was doubtful even at that time. 18. The fact is that the order dated 10.1.85 or auction proceedings or sale certificate/sale deed in question have not been challenged by any of the appellant at any point of time. 18. The fact is that the order dated 10.1.85 or auction proceedings or sale certificate/sale deed in question have not been challenged by any of the appellant at any point of time. The learned company judge while passing the order authorized the official liquidator to sell the property and we may observe here that till today none of the parties had challenged the title in court of law where the title created by virtue of sale deed executed by the order passed in the Company Petition could have been challenged. Any authority exercising the power under the Rajasthan Municipalities Act or under Section 83 of the Act of 1956 itself cannot declare the title of any party but it may pass appropriate order in the facts and circumstances of the case not effecting title. Neither any order passed in those proceedings can create right title or interest in the property nor those orders can extinguish the right, title or interest of any party vesting in the property. Therefore, the proceedings referred in these matters by both the appellants are nothing but collateral, incidental and fiscal only. The learned Revenue Minister has no jurisdiction to ignore the order passed by the competent court of law having all the jurisdiction with respect to transfer of property of company in liquidation and the learned Revenue Minister rightly held that the order passed by the District Collector contrary to High Court order cannot be allowed to stand. 19. Admittedly, the order of setting apart was passed much after the transfer of property in favour of the appellants and the order to set apart the land in dispute was passed ignoring the order passed in the company petition for sale of the land therefore, the revisional authority rightly set aside the order passed by the Collector dated 16.9.1987 while exercising power under Section 83 of the Act of 1956. At this juncture, it will be appropriate to consider Section 83 of the Act which reads as under:- 20. Section 83. Power of Government to call for records and revise order:- The State Government may call for the record of any non judicial proceeding not connected with settlement held by any officer subordinate to it, any may pass thereon such orders as it thinks fit”. 21. Section 83. Power of Government to call for records and revise order:- The State Government may call for the record of any non judicial proceeding not connected with settlement held by any officer subordinate to it, any may pass thereon such orders as it thinks fit”. 21. We do not find any force in the submission of the learned counsel for the Municipal Board that since there was dispute pending or decided between the parties in quasi judicial forms and in judicial side in High Court also like the appeal and writ against the orders passed in the matter of grant permission to raise construction as well as in mutation appeal, the revision was not maintainable against the order of the District Collector dated 16.9.87 by which the land was set apart in favour of the Municipal Board. The order dated 16.9.87 itself was never under challenge in any judicial proceedings as is clear from the facts referred above. Neither in the mutation proceedings nor in construction proceedings the order to set apart could have been challenged and nor had been challenged. 22. The order dated 16.9.87 was a non judicial order which could have been revised under Section 83 of the Act of 1956. 23. Another objection of the learned counsel for the Municipal Board is that the respondent no.1 M/s. Ganesh Bhoomi Vikas Sansthan & Others choose to challenge the order dated 16.9.87 after an inordinate delay of about 20 years and therefore the revisionary power should not have been exercised. We do not find any merit in that argument and if we may observe here that there is no reason for setting aside the order passed by the learned Revenue Minister passed under Section 83 of the Act of 1956 because that will result into bringing into force the order which gives title to the Municipal Board in contravention and contradiction to the order passed by the court of law (High Court) giving title to the respondent no.1. As we have already observed that the earlier order was passed in favour of the respondent and because of that reason also the second order passed much after ignoring the judicial proceedings taken in another proceedings cannot be given any recognition. 24. In view of the above reasons, both the appeals are dismissed.