JUDGMENT : Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. 1. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition claiming the following reliefs: "1. The impugned order dated 13.05.1992 (Annex. 5) so passed by the Assistant Colonisation Commissioner, Kolayat as well as the that of the judgment dated 07.05.2003 (Annex. 8) passed by the learned Board of Revenue may kindly be quashed and set aside with all their natural consequences. 2. The judgment dated 23.11.1998 so passed by the Commissioner, Colonisation, Bikaner in case No. 82/95 may kindly be ordered to be upheld. 3. It may be held that the respondent is not entitled to get allotment, as he has furnished false information regarding the land previously allotted to him vide order dated 07.03.1992. 4. Any other order/orders which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted in favour of the petitioner." 2. Brief facts of the case as noticed by this Court are that respondent No. 1-Shiv Kumar was allotted 24.05 Bighas uncommand land in Chak No. 3 P.S.M. II, Murabba No. 161/32, Kila No. 1-25 vide order dated 07.03.1992 passed by the Assistant Colonisation Commissioner cum Allotting Authority, Kolayat under the provisions of Rajasthan Colonisation (Allotment & Sale of Government Land in the Indira Gandhi Canal Colony Area) Rules, 1975 (for short "the Rules of 1975"). The respondent moved an application before the Assistant Colonisation Commissioner, Kolayat praying that an alternate land be allotted to him as land in question was uncultivable. The said application was accepted by the Assistant Colonisation Commissioner, Kolayat and alternate land was allotted. The alternate allotment was challenged before the Commissioner, Colonization, Bikaner and vide its judgment dated 23.11.1998, it was held that the exchange of land in question was illegal, as per the Rules of 1975. The respondent preferred a revision petition under Rule 23 (2) of the Rules of 1975 before the learned Board of Revenue for Rajasthan at Ajmer, in which, the learned Board of Revenue vide its judgment dated 07.05.2003 accepted the revision petition filed by the respondent and set aside the judgment of Colonisation Commissioner, Bikaner dated 23.11.1998. 3. The respondent preferred a revision petition under Rule 23 (2) of the Rules of 1975 before the learned Board of Revenue for Rajasthan at Ajmer, in which, the learned Board of Revenue vide its judgment dated 07.05.2003 accepted the revision petition filed by the respondent and set aside the judgment of Colonisation Commissioner, Bikaner dated 23.11.1998. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allotting authority could not have exchanged the land in question, which is 12 bighas of command land and 13 bighas of uncommand land as it was not within the domain of the allotting authority, and it could have been done by the Collector only. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner-State, Shri Dinesh Kumar Joshi, drawn the attention of this Court towards the judgment rendered by this Hon'ble Court in Ramzan Khan v. State of Rajasthan (D.B. Special Appeal No. 789/2003) dated 02nd March, 2007, relevant portion of which reads as follows: "... Section 232 does not provide for exercise of powers under it by any person other than Collector by authorising him in this behalf. It does not read as 'Collector or any other officer so authorised' in this behalf." "... Section 232 by itself does not envisage that the power to call for record and refer it to the Board to be exercised by the Collector can be delegated either by himself or by State Government authorising somebody else to discharge the function of Collector under Section 232, unless there is some other provision which can be invoked." "... So far as the Rajasthan Tenancy Act is concerned, it does not empower the State Government to appoint any other person other than the Collector to discharge the functions of Collector under Section 232." "... any other officer erstwhile exercising the power of Collector in that area shall cease to exercise powers under Section 232 and the person notified to exercise power under Section 232 shall hold exclusive power to make a reference under Section 232 thereafter. "... The Court held that the reference may be Deputy Commissioner, Colonisation to be incompetent." 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in the present case, notification dated 12.01.2011 is of similar nature to the notification issued in the aforementioned case law. 6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents opposes the submissions. 7. "... The Court held that the reference may be Deputy Commissioner, Colonisation to be incompetent." 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in the present case, notification dated 12.01.2011 is of similar nature to the notification issued in the aforementioned case law. 6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents opposes the submissions. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as perusing the record of the case, this Court finds that the question for determination in the present matter is whether the exchange of land made by the allotting authority was in accordance with law. The simple answer to the question is that as per the Rules of 1975, the allotting authority could not have permitted the exchange, but the same could have been done only by the Collector. 8. This Court takes note of the fact that it is undisputed and unchallenged that the petitioner was allotted a land vide allotment order dated 07.03.1992. The allotment order has been modified by the Assistant Colonisation Commissioner while exercising powers under Section 12 of the Rajasthan Colonisation Act, 1954 (for short "the Act of 1954"). Rule 12 of the Act of 1954 reads as under: "12. Exchange. - Subject to any orders that he may receive from the [State Government] the Collector may allow any tenant to exchange the whole or any part of his tenancy for other land in the colony and the land so taken in exchange shall in the absence of any special condition to the contrary to be recorded in writing by the Collector, be deemed to be held on the conditions and the subject to the obligation on which the land so given in exchange was held." 9. The averment made by learned counsel for the respondent-Assistant Colonisation Commissioner was empowered to exercise the powers under Section 12 to exchange the allotted land cannot be sustained in eye of law in view of the fact that the notification mentioned by the respondents in their reply dated 31.10.1969 cannot be sustained in light of the order passed by this Hon'ble Court in the matter of Ramzan Khan as stated by State counsel. 10. 10. This Court arrives at the conclusion that the power exercised by the respondent-Assistant Colonisation Commissioner under Section 12 was without jurisdiction at the threshold, and thus, at the root itself, the right of exchange accruing to the respondents does not survive. 11. This Court is also of the view that the first order itself passed while exercising powers under Section 12 of the Act of 1954 by the Assistant Colonisation Commissioner is without jurisdiction, and thus, the impugned order dated 13.05.1992 and other consequential orders are quashed and set aside. The Collector concerned is directed to exercise the powers under Section 12 of the Act of 1954 and consider the exchange sought by the petitioner in lieu of the original allotment dated 07.03.1993, which is not disputed. Such consideration shall be made within a period of three months from today by passing a speaking and reasoned order, strictly in accordance with law. 12. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present petition is disposed of. All pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly.