JUDGMENT 1. - This petition has been filed against the order dated 23.03.2010, passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer, whereby the appeal filed by the private respondent Nos.2 to 5 was allowed and the order dated 20.10.2008, passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority (hereinafter 'RAA') set aside. The Board of Revenue by the impugned order has also been pleased to set aside the order dated 25.02.2004, passed by the Collector, Ajmer purporting to transfer land in Khasra No.3362 in the khatedari of respondent Nos.2 to 5 situated at "Bhopo Ka Bada", Thok Maliyan-I, Tehsil and District Ajmer to the Urban Improvement Trust. 2. The facts of the case are that by the order dated 25.02.2004, the Collector, Ajmer in the exercise of power under Section 92 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (hereinafter 'the Act of 1956') sought to set apart certain land including the land of the respondents to the Urban Improvement Trust for development of Abadi. Claiming to be Khatedars and thus aggrieved of the said order to the extent of land in issue, the respondent Nos.2 to 5 filed an appeal under Section 75 of the Act of 1956 before the RAA. Vide order dated 20.10.2008, the RAA negatived the case of the respondent Nos.2 to 5 and dismissed the appeal. 3. Aggrieved of the order dated 20.10.2008, passed by the RAA, the private respondent Nos.2 to 5 laid a further appeal before the Board of Revenue under Section 76 of the Act of 1956. On consideration of the matter, the Board of Revenue noted the fact that in respect of land ad measuring 13 Biswa and 10 Biswansi in Khasra No.3362 situated at "Bhopo Ka Bada", Thok Maliyan-I, Tehsil and District Ajmer, the private respondent Nos.2 to 5 laid a suit No.4/1971 before the Sub Divisional Officer, Ajmer (hereinafter 'SDO') inter alia for declaration of their khatedari and mutation of their name in the revenue record whereupon vide order dated 11.12.1972, the SDO had issued a declaration that the respondent Nos.2 to 5 were the khatedars of the land ad measuring 13 Biswa and 10 Biswansi out of the total area of of land ad measuring 1 Bigha 2 Biswa 10 Biswansi in Khasra No.3362. The Board of Revenue also noted that the said order dated 11.12.1972 was never modified or set aside and this fact was admitted both by the State Government as also by the Urban Improvement Trust. In this view of the matter, the Board of Revenue allowed the appeal filed under Section 76 of the Act of 1956 by the private respondent setting aside both the order dated 20.10.2008, passed by the RAA as also the order dated 25.02.2004, passed by the Collector setting apart the land in the khatedari of private respondents under Section 92 of the Act of 1956 for development by the Urban Improvement Trust. 4. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner as also perused the impugned order dated 23.03.2010 and find that the said order is rooted in the undisputed fact of declaration made by the SDO, Ajmer in suit No.4/1971 decided on 11.12.1972 that the private respondents were the khatedars in respect of land ad measuring 13 Biswa and 10 Biswansi in Khasra No.3362. The powers of the Collector under Section 92 of the Act of 1956 is quite obviously limited to setting apart land for development for the special purposes from land which is a "Sawai Chak" and cannot be exercised in respect of land in the khatedari of a private respondent. The order dated 25.02.2004 passed by the Collector as also the order dated 20.10.2008, passed by the RAA were thus erroneous and are unsustainable. The Board of Revenue rightly set aside the said orders. 5. Counsel for the petitioner has however submitted that the proceedings taken by the private respondents under Section 75 of the Act of 1956 were misdirected inasmuch as the order dated 25.02.2004 was an administrative order and could not have been put to challenge before the RAA. The submission of the counsel for the petitioner has to be noticed only to be rejected. Admittedly, the order dated 25.02.2004 was passed with reference to powers under Section 92 of the Act of 1956. Section 75 of the Act of 1956 inter alia provides for a first appeal and states that a first appeal shall lie inter alia to the RAA from an original order passed amongst others by the Collector in matters not connected with settlement. Section 75 of the Act of 1956 inter alia provides for a first appeal and states that a first appeal shall lie inter alia to the RAA from an original order passed amongst others by the Collector in matters not connected with settlement. The order dated 25.02.2004 is ex facie not an order connected with settlement and in terms of Section 75(b) of the Act of 1956, an appeal against the order dated 25.02.2004 was maintainable. 6. I therefore find no force in this petition as the same is completely meritless and misdirected. 7. Consequently, the writ petition stands dismissed accordingly. Stay application also stands dismissed.Petition Dismissed. *******