LODHA, J — These two petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are directed against the common order passed by the Collector, Barmer on February 7, 1973 in exercise of his powers of review under section 40A of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952 (which will hereinafter be refened to as the Act).

2. The facts of the two cases, stated in brief, are that the Deputy Collector, Jagir, Barmer vide his order dated November 29 1966 allotted 110 bighas of land in village Chohatan and 340 bighas of land in village Jesar to Chimansingh, father of the petitioner Hemsingh for Khudkast (petitioner in S.B. Civil Writ No. 661 of 1973). By another order dated December 5, 1966, he allotted 270 bighas and 11 biswas of land in village Chohatan, 376 bighas in village Intada and 322 bighas in village Jesar for Khudkast to Ugamsingh, Ex Jagirdar Chohatan (petitioner in civil writ petition No. 662 of 1973).

3. The grievance of the petitioners is that a group of villagers became hostile to the petitioners for political considerations and made an application to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Barmer for declaring as Gochar a part of the land in Khasra No. 110 in village Jesar allotted to the petitioners and the Sub-Divisional Officer, Barmer, by his order dated August 30, 1968, allowed the application and declared the land allotted to the petitioners as Gochar. Later on, they also moved review applications some time in July, 1972 before the Deputy Collector, Jagir, Barmer to set aside the allotment made in favour of the petitioners. As already stated above, the Collector, Barmer by the impugned order set aside the allotments and reopened their cases.

4. It is urged on behalf of the petitioners that the Collector had no jurisdiction to review the orders of allotment after a period of more than three months as prescibed under section 40A of the Act. Another submission of the learned counsel is that there existed no grounds for the Collector to review the order and, therefore, the order is bad. Lastly it is submitted that the Collector had no jurisdiction to review the order passed by the Deputy Collector, Jagir.

5. The petitions have been opposed on behalf of the Collector, Barmer as well as by the persons at whose instance the order of review was passed, and I have heard the Deputy Government Advocate and Mr. G. S. Singhvi in opposition to the writ petitions.

6. In order to appraise the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners, it would be proper to reproduce section 40A, here :—

"40a. Review.—(1) The Board, the Jagir Commissioner or the Commissioner for Khudkasht Lands may either on an application made, wiihin three months of the 18th January, 1958, or of the date of order, whichever is later, by any interested party or suo moto, review an order passed by the Board or by such Commissioner himself or his predecessor-in-office and pass such order in relation thereto as it or he thinks fit. (2) No order passed by the Board or the Jagir Commissioner or the Commissioner for Khudkasht Lands shall be reviewed under sub-sec. (1) otherwise than on any of the grounds mentioned in Rule, Order 47 of the First Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (Central Act V of 1908), and the provisions of the said order shall apply."

7. The period of limitation prescribed for an application for review of an order is undoubtedly three months either from 18th January, 1958 or from the date of the order whichever is later.. The contention on behalf of the petitioner is that this period of limitation is applicable even to orders of review passed suo moto by the authorities mentioned in the section. I am however, unable to accept this contention for two reasons. Firstly, from the language of the section it is clearly borne out that the application for review must be made within three months. The period of three months does not govern the action which may be taken by the authorities under this section suo moto. This clearly means that a p

Click Here to Read the rest of this document