( 1. ) THIS petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging an order passed by the Board of Revenue dated 27-10-69 wherein the learned Member of the Board of Revenue entertaining a revision petition order setting aside of the order of allotment of the land in favour of the petitioner No. 3.

( 2. ) ACCORDING to the petitioners, the land in dispute bears survey No. 146 having an area 6 Bighas, 10 Biswas and situated in villages Netehara, Pargana jora, District Morena. It is alleged that the Patwari of the village included this land in the list of un-occupied land, suitable for allotment, whereupon by notification applications were invited for allotment of this land. Petitioner No. 3 Kalla submitted his application for allotment of this land and after following necessary formalities as required by the law at that time, the land was allotted in favour of Petitioner No. 3 by the orders of the Naib-tahsildar Jora dated 27-11-61.

( 3. ) AFTERWARDS, when the land was brought under cultivation, petitioner no. 3 sold away this land to petitioners Nos. 1 and 2, and handed over possession also to petitioners Nos. 1 and 2. When these petitioners were in possession non-petitioner No. 1 along with some others attempted to commit trespass over the land and, therefore, petitioners launched proceedings under section 250 of the Land Revenue Code. The Tahsildar Jora by his order dated 4-7-64 restored the possession to the petitioners under section 250 of the Land Revenue Code.

( 4. ) AFTERWARDS Nekse (non-petitioner No. 1) moved an application for review of the order passed by the Naib Tahsildar on 27-11-61 in respect of the allotment of the land. This application was filed before the Tahsildar, Jora. By his order dated 13-8-64, Tahsildar Jora submitted a report to the Collector that as the Naib-Tahsildar, who has passed the orders of allotment had been transferred from Tahsil Jora, the review petition cannot be entertained by him and the only authority which could consider the review petition was the Collector. He, therefore, submitted his report for necessary orders to the Collector, Morena.

( 5. ) THE Collector, Morena, by his order dated 27-10-65 rejected the review petition holding that the review petition was not filed before the proper authority and that he had no jurisdiction to entertain this petition. On an application made by respondent No. 1, learned Collector considered this as a revision petition filed before him and after recording evidence came to the conclusion that there was no irregularity in the proceedings of allotment and he, therefore, maintained the order of allotment by order dated 6-7-66.

( 6. ) AGAINST this non-petitioner No. 1 filed a revision before the Commissioner, Gwalior Division, but he too by his order dated 25-7-67 rejected the revision petition. Against this, non-petitioner No. 1 filed a revision petition before the Board of Revenue and by the impugned order dated 27-10-69, the learned Member of the Board of Revenue allowed by the revision and reversed the orders passed by the Commissioner and the Collector and vacated the Patta granted and also set aside the order of allotment. It is against this order that the petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution has been filed.

( 7. ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners contended that initially the allotment order was passed in 1961 and against that order within the prescribed period no revision or review petition was filed. Consequently, the Collector or the Commissioner could not have entertained any revision application after the lapse of time and the learned member of the Board of Revenue could not also revise the order of allotment after expiry of the period of limitation provided for revision.

( 8. ) LEARNED counsel also contended that non-petitioner No. 1 was not a party to these proceedings. Petitioner No. 3 was the only person concerned, who had applied for allotment and after following due formalities, the land was allotted to him. Con