JUDGMENT 1. - By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has beseeched to quash and set aside the order dated 24th September, 2007 (Annexure-2) passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Jaipur. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a suit in 1986 for seeking possession and direction to vacate the property before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Chomu, stating that the land bearing Khasra Nos. 2830, 2831, 2832, 2841 and 2842 ad measuring total Racba 0.69 hectares was mutated in the name of Shree Parshwanath Digamber Jain Mandir (Terahpanthi), Chomu, and the land bearing Khasra Nos. 3872, 3873, 3874 and 3875 total Racba 0.76 hectares was also mutated in the name of Shree Parshwanath Digamber Jain Mandir (Terahpanthi), Chomu and the same has been continuing in possession of the temple for the last several years. It was also averred that the defendants had no concern with the said land, albeit, the defendants and their relatives are stated to have been residing on the land, which was in question. Notices were issued to the defendants and finally after completion of trial, Sub Divisional Officer, Chomu, decreed the suit in favour of the care-taker of the temple and against the defendants. No appeal was preferred against the said decree. Thereafter, with a view to fulfill the aims and objects of the Trust, it was decided on 5th September, 2004 that for the growth of society, some charitable institutions like Hospital, Dharamshala shall be run and managed by the Trust itself. The Secretary of the Trust was empowered to perform all the legal formalities with regard to conversion of land from agricultural purpose to non-agricultural purpose under Section 90(B)(3) of Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956. However, having followed the due procedure of law, Devsthan Department issued a no objection certificate and objections were called for by the appropriate authorities for issuing the certificate under Section 90(B)(3) of Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956. Finally, a certificate under Section 90(B)(3) was issued to the petitioner Trust. Aggrieved with this order, the respondent no.1 Mukesh Kumar, with a view to grab the land, filed an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Jaipur, who allowed the appeal and cancelled the order dated 19th October, 2006 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, JDA, Jaipur. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record. 4. Aggrieved with this order, the respondent no.1 Mukesh Kumar, with a view to grab the land, filed an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Jaipur, who allowed the appeal and cancelled the order dated 19th October, 2006 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, JDA, Jaipur. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has focused his arguments only on a legal issue. He canvassed that Divisional Commissioner, Jaipur had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal filed by the respondent no.1, hence, the impugned order dated 24th September, 2007 cannot be said to be a legal order in the eye of law, as it was totally sans jurisdiction. He has cited the case of Gajendra Singh v. Divisional Commissioner, Jodhpur & Ors. reported in 2009(2) WLC (Rajasthan) 668 , in support thereof. 5. E converso, learned Additional Government Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.2 opposed the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and defended the impugned order stating the same to be just and proper. He further contended that Divisional Commissioner, Jaipur had jurisdiction to entertain the appeal and the impugned order having suffered from no infirmity, did not warrant any intervention. 6. Having reflected over the submissions made at the bar and carefully perused the judgment of Gajendra Singh (supra), it is found that this Court held that the order passed in such a case by the Divisional Commissioner, Jodhpur was totally sans jurisdiction. This Court critically analyzing the legal issue ad longum, observed as under:- "According to sub-section(7) of Section 90-B of the Act of 1956, appeal can be filed against the order made under sub-section (5) of Section 90-B of the Act of 1956 but there is no provision for filing any appeal against the order made under sub-section (3) of Section 90-B of the Act of 1956. Therefore, the Divisional Commissioner has illegally entertained the appeal against the order so made by the authorised officer for resumption of the land under sub-section (3) of Section 90-B of the Act of 1956. The Divisional Commissioner has entertained the appeal filed by the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 without any jurisdiction because the order which was challenged before the Divisional Commissioner was not passed by the authorised officer under sub-section (5) of Section 90-B of the Act of 1956. The Divisional Commissioner has entertained the appeal filed by the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 without any jurisdiction because the order which was challenged before the Divisional Commissioner was not passed by the authorised officer under sub-section (5) of Section 90-B of the Act of 1956. The argument of learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 with regard to provision of U.I.T. Act for entertaining the appeal is also not tenable because the land of the petitioner was resumed under sub-section (3) of Section 90-B of the Act of 1956 and order was passed by the authorised officer under the said section. Thereafter, pattas were issued by the U.I.T., meaning thereby, the provisions of U.I.T. Act with regard to remedy before the Divisional Commissioner is related to the order for the land which is subject matter of the U.I.T. but here in this case, admittedly the petitioner along with other persons purchased the land in question from the original khatedar and surrendered the same under sub-section (3) of Section 90-B of the Act of 1956 and thereafter, the said land was resumed under sub-section (3) of Section 90-B of the Act of 1956. Therefore, the contention of learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 that as per U.I.T. Act appeal filed before the Divisional Commissioner is maintainable have no force of law. Further upon perusal of Annexure-11, it is abundantly clear that in the top of the order, it is specifically stated that this appeal has been filed under sub-section (7) of Section 90-B of the Act of 1956. Meaning thereby, the said appeal was filed under sub-section (7) of Section 90-B of the Act of 1956 upon which the order impugned was passed by the Divisional Commissioner. Thus, in my opinion, the Divisional Commissioner has exercised its jurisdiction without any authority of law under sub-section (7) of Section 90-B of the Act of 1956. Hence, such an order cannot sustain before the eye of law because, it is totally without jurisdiction." 7. Adverting to the facts of the instant case, it is found that the facts of the case on hand are similar to the facts of the case of Gajendra Singh and the judgment rendered by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 42/2008 holds good on the case at hand, in toto. Adverting to the facts of the instant case, it is found that the facts of the case on hand are similar to the facts of the case of Gajendra Singh and the judgment rendered by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 42/2008 holds good on the case at hand, in toto. In the instant case also, the learned Divisional Commissioner, Jaipur is found to have cancelled the order dated 19th October, 2006 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, JDA vide impugned judgment dated 24th September, 2007, which is found to have been passed sans jurisdiction, as the Divisional Commissioner, had no authority to entertain the appeal against the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, JDA and thus, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 8. In view of above, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 24th September, 2007 rendered by the Divisional Commissioner, Jaipur stands set aside.Petition allowed. *******