JUDGMENT 1. - By this writ petition, a challenge is made to the order dated 06th July, 2007 whereby review petition preferred by respondent was allowed by Board of Revenue Rajasthan, Ajmer. 2. It is a case where land was allotted to the private respondent in the year 1975. It was under Rule 14(4) of the Allotment Rules of 1970. The allotment was then cancelled vide the order dated 23rd June, 2000. The respondent preferred an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Ajmer however, the order of cancellation was maintained by dismissing the appeal vide the order dated 9th January, 2001. The respondent thereafter, preferred second appeal before the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer which was also dismissed on 17th June, 2002. The respondent thereafter, preferred a review petition, which was allowed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when the respondent was not found in possession of the land, proceeding for cancellation of allotment was made and concluded vide the order dated 23rd June, 2000. The first appeal and second appeal preferred by the respondent were also dismissed finding that the respondent was not in possession of the land. The Revenue Appellate Authority so as the Board of Revenue found that the respondent had taken one crop in Samvat 2034 and for the period between 1987 till 1998, the respondent did not take initiative for possession of the land. The respondent was not found in possession of the land and the aforesaid fact could not be refuted, therefore, cancellation of allotment was made. On a review petition, altogether new case was made out and review petition was accepted ignoring the plea taken by the respondent before the Revenue Appellate Authority so as the Board of Revenue while maintaining first and second appeals. A review can be made only when an error exist apparent on the face of record. In view of the above, Revenue Board exceeded to its jurisdiction while accepting the review petition. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submitted that being an army personnel, he had asked Chakanlal to take possession of the land with a right of cultivation. The cultivation of the land was made throughout which was found proved from Khasra Girdavari of the Samvat 2031 to 2054 and cultivatory possession of the petitioner was found from Samvat 2032 till 2054. The cultivation of the land was made throughout which was found proved from Khasra Girdavari of the Samvat 2031 to 2054 and cultivatory possession of the petitioner was found from Samvat 2032 till 2054. In view of the cultivatory possession, the cancellation of the allotment was illegal. The facts aforesaid were ignored by the competent authority while cancelling allotment and even in first and second appeal, accordingly review petition is rightly accepted by the Board of Revenue. A reference of the judgment of this Court in the case of Pappu & Ors. v. Jagram & Ors. reported in 2008(1) RRT 610 has been given involving similar facts. The Girdavari was produced to show cultivatory possession thus, the cancellation of the allotment was set aside. A further reference to the amendment made in Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of land for Agriculture Purpose), Rules 1970 has been given where a person who has allotted the land prior to 1970 and cultivated 50% of the land in first year and remaining in second year and if their allotment was cancelled earlier, is made eligible for conferment of Khatedari rights, even if he was not in cultivatory possession for last three years and fulfils other terms and conditions of Rules of 1970. It is stated that respondent's case fall under amended rule 68(4) of the Rules of 1970. 5. I have considered the rival submissions of the parties and perused the record. 6. It is a case where three revenue courts decided the issue against the respondent. The first order was for cancellation of the allotment finding violation of the conditions of allotment. The appeal before the revenue appellate authority remained unsuccessful. The respondent thereafter, preferred second appeal before the Board of Revenue which was also dismissed. The argument taken there is quoted hereunder to show as to what plea was taken there. The first order was for cancellation of the allotment finding violation of the conditions of allotment. The appeal before the revenue appellate authority remained unsuccessful. The respondent thereafter, preferred second appeal before the Board of Revenue which was also dismissed. The argument taken there is quoted hereunder to show as to what plea was taken there. Para 4 of the order dated 17th June, 2002 is reproduced as under:- " 4- vf/koDrk vihykFkhZ dk rdZ gS fd vihykFkhZ dks izfrj{kk lsok esa jgrs gq, fookfnr vkjkft;kr dk vkoaVu fd;k x;k Fkk vkSj vihykFkhZ dh vksj ls Jh p[ku yky dks fookfnr vkjkth dk dCtk lkSaik x;k Fkk vkSj Jh p[kuyky }kjk vihykFkhZ dh vksj ls dk'r dh tkrh jgh Fkh vkSj vihykFkhZ dk uke jktLo jsdkMZ esa ntZ dj fn;k x;k Fkk rFkk [kkrsnkjh izkIr gks xbZ Fkh] oks vihykFkhZ dh lsokfuo`fRr ls iwoZ gh p[kuyky ykvkSykn QkSr gks x;k] ftl ij vU; O;fDr;ksa }kjk vkjkth ij vfrdze.k dj fy;k x;kA vihykFkhZ }kjk fookfnr vkjkth;kr dh iRFkjx<+h djkus ckcr izkFkZuk i= is'k fd;k Fkk] ysfdu dksbZ iRFkjx<+h ugha dh xbZ ,oa rglhynkj us vkoaVu fujLr djus gsrq izkFkZuk i= ftyk dysDVj vtesj dks izLrqr dj fn;kA jktLFkku dk'rdkjh vf/kfu;e] 1956 dh /kkjk 46 ds vUrxZr izfrj{kk lsok dfeZ;ksa ds vf/kdkjksa dh j{kk fd;k tkuk pkfg,] ysfdu v/khuLFk U;k;ky; us xkSj ugha dj vius fu.kZ; ls vihykFkhZ dh vihy [kkfjt dj nh] tks vuqfpr gSA vr% vihy Lohdkj dh tk,A " 7. The perusal of the para quoted above reveals that there was an admission of the respondent that possession of the land was taken by Chakanlal on his behalf who was cultivating the land. The said Chakanlal died prior to retirement of the respondent who was in military service. Chakanlal was having no legal heir. The land was thus, encroached by others. The above facts clearly show that respondent was not in possession of the land after the death of Chakanlal rather it was encroached. Contrary to what has been said in the second appeal, the reviewing authroity has made a new case without realising limited jurisdiction of review petition. The reference of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and Ors. v. Mohinder Singh and Ors. reported in 2003 1 AWC 567 SC would be relevant where jurisdiction in the review has been specified. The relevant para reads as under:- "3.Learned Additional ................... The reference of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and Ors. v. Mohinder Singh and Ors. reported in 2003 1 AWC 567 SC would be relevant where jurisdiction in the review has been specified. The relevant para reads as under:- "3.Learned Additional ................... 9. Under Order 47, Rule 1 , C.P.C., a judgment may be open to review inter alia, if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the Court to exercise its power of review under Order 47, Rule 1 , Code of Civil Procedure In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47, Rule 1 , C.P.C., it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be "reheard and corrected". A review petition, it must be remembered, has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise." 8. In view of the judgment aforesaid, interference can be caused while hearing the review petition only when there is an error apparent on the face of the record but in the instant case, the review petition was accepted treating Khasra Girdavari to prove possession of the respondent from Samvat 2029 to 2042. The review was accepted ignoring the pleading of respondent himself. The Girdavari can prove cultivation but may not decide as to who was in possession unless so mentioned. 9. In view of the above, the order passed on review petition cannot be allowed to stand. The Board of Revenue travelled beyond its jurisdiction for acceptance of review petition. It was after showing sympathy to maintain the allotment in excess to the jurisdiction. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent has further made reference to Rule 68(4) as amended. The amended provision has been referred without pleading to make out a case and to cover it by Rule 68(4) of the Rules of 1970. To apply the aforesaid rule, not only it has to be shown that in the first year, cultivation of the land was to the extent of 50% and remaining was in the second year coupled with the fact that possession was not existing in last three years. To apply the aforesaid rule, not only it has to be shown that in the first year, cultivation of the land was to the extent of 50% and remaining was in the second year coupled with the fact that possession was not existing in last three years. The aforesaid were not pleaded even in the review petition and is not even part of discussion therein. A new case cannot be made out at this stage that too without factual background. 11. In view of the above, even the last arguments raised by the learned counsel for the respondent cannot be accepted. 12. I find that a detail and elaborate order was passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority so as the Board of Revenue in First and second appeal which was not liable to be reviewed. The exercise of power in review petition was like hearing an appeal. The impugned order is accordingly set aside. The writ petition preferred by the State Government is allowed with the observation made here-in-above.Consequent upon disposal of the main petition, the stay application also stands disposed of.Petition allowed. *******