JUDGMENT : Sangeet Lodha, J. This petition is directed against the order dated 17/18.4.96 of the Board of Revenue Rajasthan, whereby an appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 5.12.83 of the Revenue Appellate Authority (RAA), Bikaner, affirming the order dated 19.3.80 passed by the District Collector, Sri Ganganagar and further directing the resumption of the disputed land by the State, stands dismissed. 2. The relevant facts are that the petitioner purchased 25 bighas land comprising Square No. 36/337 in Chak 26 PBN, Tehsil Suratgarh, District Sri Ganganagar in open auction on 28.7.61. The petitioner deposited ¼th amount of the sale price. The sale was confirmed by the State Government on 11.12.61. On the notice being issued for depositing the remaining ¾th amount, the petitioner moved an application to the Tehsildar that the bid was made by him on behalf of Smt. Jaswant Kaur and others, the respondents No. 4 to 7 herein and that the amount was also deposited by him on their behalf and therefore, the entries in the record showing his name may be corrected and the remaining amount may be realised from the actual purchaser of the land, the respondents No. 4 to 7 herein. The Tehsildar made a report which was approved by the Deputy Commissioner, Colonization and the matter was referred to the State Government. Vide order dated 30.7.62, the name of the petitioner herein was ordered to be substituted by the names of the respondents No. 4 to 7. The respondents No. 4 to 7 deposited the remaining amount and patta of the land was issued in their name. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an application under Section 11 r/w Section 14 of the Rajasthan Colonization Act, 1954 ("the Act") before the District Collector, Sri Ganganagar for cancellation of the allotment. The application was allowed by the District Collector vide order dated 28.12.77 and the allotment made in favour of the respondents No. 4 to 7 was cancelled and the possession of the land was directed to be handed over to the petitioner herein. Aggrieved thereby, the respondents No. 4 to 7 preferred an appeal before the RAA, Bikaner, which was allowed vide order dated 22.2.79 and the matter was remanded for inquiry afresh to the District Collector, Sri Ganganagar. 3. Aggrieved thereby, the respondents No. 4 to 7 preferred an appeal before the RAA, Bikaner, which was allowed vide order dated 22.2.79 and the matter was remanded for inquiry afresh to the District Collector, Sri Ganganagar. 3. After remand, the District Collector allowed the application vide order dated 19.3.80 and cancelled the mutation entered in the names of the respondents No. 4 to 7. The District Collector issued a further direction that the possession of the disputed land be handed over to the petitioner herein. The order passed by the District Collector, as aforesaid, was appealed against by the respondents No. 4 to 7 before the RAA, Bikaner. The appeal preferred by the respondents No. 4 to 7 was dismissed by the RAA, Bikaner vide order dated 5.12.83, however, the order of the Collector was modified to the extent directing handing over of the possession to the petitioner and it was ordered that the land shall stand resumed to the State Government. 4. Aggrieved by the order dated 5.12.83 passed by the RAA, Bikaner, the petitioner as also the respondents No. 4 to 7, preferred appeal before the Board of Revenue. The appeal preferred by the respondents No. 4 to 7 was dismissed by the Board of Revenue vide order dated 19.3.91. 5. Aggrieved by the order dated 19.3.80 passed by the District Collector, Sri Ganganagar, the order dated 5.12.83 passed by the RAA, Bikaner and order dated 19.3.91 passed by the Board of Revenue, the respondents No. 4 to 7 preferred a writ petition being D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1465/91, before this Court, which stood dismissed after due consideration on merits vide order dated 10.7.95. After decision of the writ petition preferred by the respondents No. 4 to 7 by this Court, as aforesaid, the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed by the Board of Revenue by the order impugned dated 18.4.96. Hence, this petition. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Board of Revenue has seriously erred in maintaining the order passed by the RAA, Bikaner dated 5.12.83 directing resumption of the land by the State Government. Hence, this petition. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Board of Revenue has seriously erred in maintaining the order passed by the RAA, Bikaner dated 5.12.83 directing resumption of the land by the State Government. It is submitted that the land in question was purchased by the petitioner in an open auction and the sale was confirmed by the State Government on 11.12.61 but unfortunately, thereafter, the respondents No. 4 to 7 in fraudulent manner got the land allotted in their names and the petitioner was dispossessed from the land. It is submitted that the allotment made in favour of the respondents No. 4 to 7 having been cancelled by the District Collector, Sri Ganganagar, and upheld by the appellate courts as also this Court, the petitioner is entitled for restoration of his possession over the land in question. Learned counsel submitted that there is nothing on record suggesting that the petitioner was involved in illegal allotment or transfer and therefore, the allotment made in his favour deserves to be maintained. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 4 to 7 and the learned Deputy Government Counsel submitted that the order passed by the Board of Revenue affirming the order dated 5.12.83 passed by the RAA, Bikaner, having been upheld by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 10.7.95 passed in the writ petition preferred by the respondents No. 4 to 7, the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 5.12.83 was liable to be dismissed by the Board of Revenue on this count alone and nothing survives for consideration of this Court in the present writ petition. 8. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 9. Indisputably, the issue with regard to the fraudulent transfer of the land allotted to the petitioner, in favour of the respondents No. 4 to 7, stands concluded by a Bench decision of this Court dated 10.7.95 rendered in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1465/91. 8. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 9. Indisputably, the issue with regard to the fraudulent transfer of the land allotted to the petitioner, in favour of the respondents No. 4 to 7, stands concluded by a Bench decision of this Court dated 10.7.95 rendered in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1465/91. It is pertinent to note that while deciding the writ petition, preferred by the respondents No. 4 to 7 herein, wherein, the petitioner was party respondent No. 5, a Bench of this Court has arrived at categorical finding that the orders impugned therein passed by the revenue authorities do not suffer from error of law or jurisdiction and therefore, as a matter of fact, the appeal preferred by the petitioner before the Board of Revenue was liable to be dismissed in the light of the Bench decision of this Court referred supra. In any case, it has come on record that after the auction being knocked down in favour of the petitioner and deposit of the ¼th amount, the petitioner made an application for transfer of the land in favour of the respondents No. 4 to 7 stating that he had given the bid on their behalf. Further, it is not the case of the petitioner that after depositing the ¼th amount, he ever offered the remaining bid amount and therefore, the involvement of the petitioner in effecting the fraudulent transfer which was subsequently questioned by him is apparent on the face of the record. Be that as it may, while exercising power under Section 11 r/w Section 14 and setting aside the fraudulent transfer, there was no occasion for the District Collector to pass an order directing handing over of the possession of the disputed land to the petitioner herein and thus, the RAA, Bikaner was absolutely justified in directing the resumption of the land by the State. 10. In this view of the matter, in the considered opinion of this Court, the order impugned passed by the Board of Revenue dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner and affirming the order dated 5.12.83 passed by the RAA, Bikaner, does not suffer from any infirmity, illegality or jurisdictional error so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 11. 11. It has come on record that despite the Bench decision of this Court dated 10.7.95 declining to interfere with the order dated 19.3.91 passed by the Board of Revenue affirming the order passed by the RAA, Bikaner dated 5.12.83 setting aside the transfer of the land in favour of the respondents No. 4 to 7 and directing resumption of the land to the State, the possession of the land has not been taken and the LRs of Balveer Kaur and others, the respondents No. 5/1 to 5/5 herein, continue to be in possession thereof. If it is so, the District Collector should take appropriate steps to take possession of the land forthwith. 12. In the result, the petition fails, it is hereby dismissed with the observation as above. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed.