The State Government has no power of suo moto review of its earlier order passed under Rule 14 of the Rajasthan (Allotment & Conversion of Agricultural Land for Residential or Commercial Purposes in Urban Areas) Rules 1971.

1. - These 7 writ petitions have been taken up today for final hearing with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. As common questions of law and fact are raised in these writ petitions, it would be convenient to decide them by a common order.

2. The case of all the petitioners is that each one of them had applied for conversion of agricultural land under his tenancy and possession and situated within district of Bhilwara, into land meant lot residential or commercial purposes in urban area, in accordance with the provision of Rule 5 of the Rajasthan (Allotment & Conversion of Agricultural Land for Residential or Commercial Purposes in Urban Areas) Rules 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). The Collector, Bhilwara, after consulting the Urban Improvement Trust, Bhilwara, passed an order on 21-6-74 allowing the requisite conversion article regularisation for the use of agricultural land for construction of residential houses by granting leases for a period of 99 years on payment of premium urban assessment etc as directed by him in his aforesaid order. In pursuance of the said order of the Collector Bhilwara, leases were duly executed by each one of the petitioners and State of Rajasthan and lease agreements were duly registered some time in the year 1974.

3. One Chandmal Soni, resident of Bhilwara, felt aggrieved and moved the State Government under Rule 14 of the Rules and prayed that the aforesaid orders regarding conversion and regularization, passed by the Collector, Bhilwara dated June 21, 1974 be set aisde. However, the State Government while exercising the provisional powers under Rule 14, dismissed the application of Chandmal Soni and confirmed the order passed by the Collector Bhilwara by the orders passed by the then Revenue Minister on September 12, 1977.

4. The grievance of the petitioners is that thereafter the Collector Bhilwara has given notice to the petitioners directing them to appear before the Revenue Minister for a suo moto review of the earlier order passed on September 12, 1977. Learned Counsel for the petitioners contends that there is no provision for such a review under the Rules and as such the proceedings for suo moto review initiated by the Revenue Minister are without jurisdiction. Leaned Additional Government Advocate placed reliance on the provisions of Rule 14 of the Rules in defending the proceedings for a suo moto review by the State Government and urged that the provisions of Rule 14 have over riding effect and vest the power of review in the State Government and because the earlier order passed by the then Revenue Munster dated September 12, 1977 was an order dismissing the application of Chandmal Soni in default of application, as such it was not a final adjudication of the matter in dispute and on the aforesaid basis the proceedings for suo moto review are sought to be supported on behalf of the State Government.

5. The Rules contained a provision for appeal to the State Govt. against the order passed by the Collector, as contained in Rule 30(1) of the Rules. But the said provision of appeal has been deleted by the notifi cation of the State Government dated March 16, 1974 published in the Raj. Gazette of the same date. Thus on the date the order authorising conversions and regularisation of agricultural land for residential purposes was passed by the Collector, Bhilwara in these cases on June 21, 1974, no provision of appeal existed. Rule 14 of the Rules, as I have already observed above, is analogous to the power of revision of the State Government.Rule 14 runs as under:

"Rule 14 : Powers of the Government (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in these Rules, the State Government either on its own motion or on the application of any person, shall have the powers to call for record of any case and pass such order as it deems fit, after giving the parties concerned an opportunity of being heard.

(2) Notwithstanding any thing contained in these Rules but subject t