The main legal point established in the judgment is that the allotment of land must be made in accordance with the statutory provisions, and administrative orders or circulars cannot supplement or supplant the statutory provisions.

1. - By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of the Board of the Revenue dated 8.8.2007.

2. Brief facts relevant to the present writ petition are that petitioner moved an application before the Additional Collector (II), Alwar to challenge the allotment of land made in favour of non-petitioner No. 1. It was contended therein that the allotment, so made, under the provisions of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Land for Agricultural Purposes) Rules, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1970'), was not proper, because the allotments were not made in accordance with Rule 13(3-A) and Rule 20 of the Wiles of 1970. Petitioner contended that as per Rule 13 of the Rules of 1970, the allotment can be made only by the Committee as provided under the aforesaid Rules. However, in the present matter, In violation of Rule 13, a Committee was constituted and that made allotment in favour of the non-petitioner, more so, an application moved by the non-petitioner for regularisation of their possession of the land in dispute was rejected on the same day, i.e., 22.06.1992, but, thereafter, the Committee made recommendation of allotment of the land under the Rules of 1970 which was quite a contradictory action of the Committee. The main allegation of the petitioner therein was that as per Rule 13, Member of Legislative Assembly, Pradhan or a Sarpanch are necessarily to be the member of the Committee, inasmuch as Section 13(3-A) provides that the quorum for constituting the meeting of Advisory Committee shall be of three members of whom one should be from the Member of the Legislative Assembly, Pradhan or the Sarpanch. However, in the present matter, none of them was member of the Advisory Committee and, therefore, without there being a proper constitution of the Advisory Committee, if allotment was made, then same was not sustainabl. The Additional Collector accepted the application of the petitioner and set aside the allotment order dated 22.06.1992.

3. Aggrieved by the order of the Assistant Collector, the non-petitioner preferred an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority which, then, accepted the appeal of the non-petitioner and directed to maintain the allotment order. Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner preferred an appeal before the Board of Revenue, Ajmer and the appeal was accepted vide order dated 26.04.2005, wherein the Board of Revenue held that the allotments have been made in violation of Rule 13 of the Rules of 1970. The non-petitioner, thereafter, preferred a review petition before the Board of Revenue and vide the impugned order, the review petition of the non-petitioner was accepted.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the impugned order has been passed by the Board of Revenue in review petition contrary to the provisions of Rules, inasmuch as, the Board of Revenue, by referring to a Circular dated 14.05.1992, issued by the Revenue Department, accepted the review petition, though the said Circular, being contrary to the statutory provisions, should not have been looked into or relied for acceptance of review petition. It was, thus, prayed that the order of the Board of Revenue passed in the review petition deserves to be set aside.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, submitted that the allotment of land in his favour was made in view of the recommendations of a Committee which was constituted pursuant to the Circular of the Government dated 14.05.1999. In the said Circular, it was provided that if due to the non-availability of Pradhan, Sarpanch, if Administrator is looking after the work, then, the Administrator can be the part of the Advisory Committee as per Rule 13 and any decision taken therein, would be proper as the Circular aforesaid permitted such a constitution. Therefore, learned counsel for the respondents submits that if the Board of Revenue has reviewed its order pursuant to the circular, then no interference is required t