Authority of appellate bodies is limited by jurisdiction; exceeding this leads to nullification of their orders.

Order :

ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, J.

1. The instant writ petition has been preferred against the impugned order dated 08.05.2017 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Kota as well as the order dated 03.02.2021 passed by the Board of Revenue (for short “the Board”).

2. By passing the impugned order dated 08.05.2017, the Divisional Commissioner, Kota has set aside the order dated 15.01.2001 passed by the Urban Improvement Trust, Kota (for short “UIT”) under Section 90-B of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act , 1956 (for short “the Act of 1956”).

3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner submitted a revision petition before the Board, however, the same was rejected vide impugned order dated 03.02.2021 by treating the same as non-maintainable.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner-UIT submits that the proceedings under Section 90-B of the Act of 1956 of the colony “Model Town” were carried out by the UIT in which a plot was kept vacant/reserved for Other Civil Facility/Other Computational Facility (for short “OCF”). It is the case of the petitioner that the respondents had encroached upon this land for which a notice under Section 91-A and 91-B of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959 (for short “the Act of 1959”) was issued to them. Learned counsel submits that aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the UIT, the respondents approached this Court by way of filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10747/2008 seeking directions against the petitioner for release of patta of Plot No.5A in his favour and restrain the respondents for treating the plot as OCF or for any other purpose. Learned counsel submits that the entire case of the respondents was confined to their claim over the land situated at Plot No.5A. Learned counsel submits that the aforesaid writ petition was withdrawn by the respondents (“petitioners” therein) with liberty to avail other alternative remedy of filing appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the aforesaid writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 06.09.2016 and liberty was granted to the respondents to prefer appeal within a period of 30 days and the Appellate Authority was directed to decide the same on its merits ignoring the period of limitation. Learned counsel submits that in the garb of the aforesaid order dated 06.09.2016, the respondents have challenged the order dated 15.01.2001 passed by the petitioner-UIT under Section 90-B of the Act of 1956. Learned counsel submits that, while going beyond its jurisdiction, the Divisional Commissioner allowed the appeal and the order dated 15.01.2001 was quashed and set-aside. Learned counsel submits that there is no reason or occasion available with the respondents to assail the order dated 15.01.2001 by way of filing appeal, as their case was confined to Plot No.5A only, hence, under these circumstances, the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner as well as the order passed by the Board are not sustainable in th eyes of law and are liable to be quashed and set-aside.

6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents opposes the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the respondents are the whole & sole owner of the subject land since time immemorial and they have raised constructions over the same. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner-UIT was not having any authority to declare the subject land as OCF, for utilization of the same as facility area for inhabitance in the vicinity. Learned counsel submits that the case of the petitioner with regard to the scheme of patta of the aforesaid land is a consequence of the order dated 15.01.2001, therefore, unless and until, the order dated 15.01.2001 is not quashed and set-aside, the patta of the subject land could not have been issued in f