M.L. Jain, J.
1. The facts are that the village Panchayat, Padampur, District Sri Ganganagar, allotted a plot of land, measuring 6,300 Sq ft. in dispute on 11.8.59 to the petitioner, Karam Chand on a rent of Rs. 100/- per year for raising a dairy farm. One of the conditions of allotment was that if the petitioner did not put up the dairy farm and utilised, the land for some other purpose, then the allotment was liable to cancellation. The petitioner instead of putting up a dairy farm installed a saw machine. A notice on 21.4.60 was issued to the petitioner Karam Chand. He refused to offer any explanation for contravention of the condition and challenged the Panchayat to do whatever it liked. The Panchayat cancelled the allotment of land on 1.5.60. The Panchayat also held that he had created nuisance and obstruction, and there fore, also imposed a fine of Rs. 15/- and directed that the petitioner shall pay a fine of a rupee a day a long as his disobedience of its direction continued.
2. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Panchayat Samiti which by is order dated 20.9.62 set aside the order of the Panchayat together with the fine and penalty. The Panchayat Samiti also allowed the petitioner to continue his saw machine. The District Development Officer however, reported on 21.1.67 the matter to the Additional Collector, Sri Ganganagar, who, on 28.6.67 quashed the order of the Panchayat Samiti.
3. Yet, upon an application made by respondent Laxman Das, three members of the Panchayat inquired and found that the machine and the constructions on the land belonged, in fact, to him. On 1-8.67, the Gram Panchayat therefore sold the same plot for Rs. 2,000/- to respondent Laxman Das, under Rule 266 of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (General) Rules, 1961. The petitioner filed a review application before the Additional Collector against his order of 28.6.67. The Additional Collector, Sri Ganganagar stayed his order on 5 8.67. However, in ignorance of this stay order, the Collector upon the request of the Panchayat made on 21.9.67 confirmed the sale in favour of Laxman Das 27.9.67. The Additional Collector, Sri Ganganagar, then dismissed the review petition of the petitioner Karam Chand on 15.1.68. He, however, reviewed his order dated 28 6 67 and cancelled the same on 28.1 68.
4. The petitioner, then, filed, an application before the Collector on 2.2.68 that the matter of confirmation of sale be reconsidered Thereupon the Collector by his judgment dated 19.11.68 agreed to do so and set aside the confirmation of sale and directed that petitioner Karam Chand shall continue to occupy the land. Against this, order, respondent Laxman Das filed a revision before the Revenue Appellate authority. The said authority by its order dated 3.6.71, modified the order of the Collector, upheld the sale in favour of Laxman Das upon the condition that he she 11 pay Rs. 4,000/- in place of Rs. 2,000/- 10 the Panchayat. Aggrieved by this order the present petition has been filed by Karam Chand.
5. The aforesaid resume of events show that the result of the proceedings that terminated in the office of the Additional Collector on 28.1.68 and in the office of the Collector on 19,11.68, was that the allotment of land in favour of the petitioner continued as restored by the Panchayat Samiti and the sale in favour of Laxman Das became ineffective. The Revenue Appellate Authority however reversed that position. The main contention of the petitioner, now is that the order of Revenue Appellate Authority was without jurisdiction. Under Rule 270 an appeal, lies to, the Revenue Appellate Authority against the order of the Collector made with reference to Rules, 265, 266, 267 and 268 of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya, Panchayat (General) Rules, 1961, but no appeal was filed and instead a revision under Rule 272 was filed before the Revenue Appellate Authority. Rule 272 provides that the State Government or any officer to whom powers of revision under Section 27A of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953, have been delegated under Section 70 thereof, may on his own motion or an, application made in this behalf hear a revision against any order passed by the Panchayat, Panchayat Samiti, or the Collector, or the Revenue Appellate Authority in connection with Rules 265-268 or in an appeal under Rule 270 Section 27A of the Panchayat Act provides that the State Government may revise an order passed b the Collector. It is also provided in this section that this power of revision can be delegated to am other officer The State Government issued a notification under Sub-section (2) of Section 27A and Section 70 which is published in the Gazette Extra ordinary on 16.11.60. According to this notification, the State Government delegated its powers under Section 27A(1), to the Revenue Appellate Authority in respect of an order passed by the Collector under any provision of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953, except an order passed under Section 27A(1).
6. Now, in order to succeed in his contention the petitioner has to show that the impugned order of the Collector was made by him under Section 27A(1) because it is only that order which has been excepted from revision to the Revenue Appellate Authority. The Collector had confirmed the sale and had later on withdrawn the confirmation. It is not known under what provision the Collector made and withdrew the order of confirmation. Rule 265 of the said General Rules, requires confirmation in case of an auction, while the Panchayat hid specifically stated that the sale of the plot in favour of Laxman Das was made under Rule 266 The order of the Collector was not passed in any delegated revisional jurisdiction under Section 27A(1). Therefore, the Revenue Appellate Authority by virtue of the aforesaid delegation made in its favour, had jurisdiction to revise under Rule 272 of the said Rules the order of the Collector dated 19.11.68. I therefore, see no force in the contention of the petitioner and here by dismiss this petition. The petitioner shall however, be at liberty to pursue any remedy by way of suit or otherwise that may be available to him under any law for the time being in force. No order as to costs.