JUDGMENT : V. SRINIVAS, CHAIRMAN 1. This reference has been received from the learned single bench seeking opinion of the larger bench on the following questions;- mifuos'ku rglhynkj }kjk /kkjk 22 mifuos'ku vf/kfu;e] 1954 ds rgr ikfjr fd;s x;s fu.kZ;ksa ds fo:) vihyh; U;k;ky; mik;qDr] mifuos'ku] tSlyesj }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; ds fo:) jktLo e.M+y ds le{k izLrqr dh xbZ fuxjkfu;ka vUrxZr /kkjk 84 lifBr /kkjk 9] jktLFkku Hkw jktLo vf/kfu;e] 1956 dks e.M+y ds Lrj ij iks"k.kh; ekuk tk dj xq.kkoxq.k ij fuf.kZr fd;k tkosA vFkok mifuos'ku rglhynkj }kjk /kkjk 22 mifuos'ku vf/kfu;e] 1954 ds rgr ikfjr fd;s x;s fu.kZ;ksa ds fo:) vihyh; U;k;ky; mik;qDr] mifuos'ku] tSlyesj }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; ds fo:) vfrfjDr vk;qDr mifuos'ku ,oa jktLo vihy izkf/kdkjh ds U;k;ky; esa f}rh; vihy izLrqr dh tkuh pkfg,\ 2. We heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the Government Advocate appeared for the State. Shri Purna Shankar Dashora, Senior Advocate appeared as Amicus Curiae in the case. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioners argued that he had filed the revisions under Section 84 accompanied with Section 9, Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 and Rule 23(2) of Rajasthan Colonization Rules, 1975 against the order dated 3.8.2016 passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner, Colonization, Jaisalmer in the appeal No. 114/2016 bearing title Hameed Khan v. State of Rajasthan. The learned Counsel for petitioners has pleaded that the post of Additional Commissioner-cum-Revenue Appellate Authority was vacant and hence he had filed the revisions in the matter. The learned Counsel for petitioners has prayed that the vacant post of Additional Commissioner-cum-Revenue Appellate Authority, Jaisalmer has since been filled and he has the option of filing a second appeal under Section 75. Shri P.S. Dashora appearing as Amicus Curiae in the case argued that in case where appeal lies to the subordinate Court, a revision cannot be directly entertained by the Board. So it is necessary that except in exceptional cases, all other remedies must first be exhausted before the revisional powers of the Board are invoked. In support of his arguments, the learned Amicus Curiae submitted the following citations: 2009 RRD 795, 2013 DNJ (Raj.)171, 1980 RRD 774, 1974 RRD 363 and 1978 RRD 132 Head note (c). The Board has consistently held that revision against an appealable order is not maintainable. 4. Having heard the arguments, we have reached the following decision. In support of his arguments, the learned Amicus Curiae submitted the following citations: 2009 RRD 795, 2013 DNJ (Raj.)171, 1980 RRD 774, 1974 RRD 363 and 1978 RRD 132 Head note (c). The Board has consistently held that revision against an appealable order is not maintainable. 4. Having heard the arguments, we have reached the following decision. In the impugned case, the orders of Deputy Commissioner, Colonization are appealable to the Additional Colonization Commissioner who is also the designated Revenue Appellate Authority in accordance with Section 75 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act and second appeal lies to the Board under Section 76 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act against order of Additional Colonization Commissioner-cum-Revenue Appellate Authority. The remedy under Section 76 has not been exhausted. 5. We thank the services of all Advocates who appeared as Amicus Curiae. 6. The file is returned to the single bench with the above opinion. 7. Reference answered.