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. 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 fu