JUDGMENT
Rajesh Balia, J.
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
2. The present appeal arises out of the order passed by the learned single Judge in writ petition No. 45/99 filed by the State of Rajasthan. The petition has been filed on 5.1.1999 and affidavit in support of petition was sworn by one Hari Narain Paliwal Tehsildar alleging himself to be officer In-charge of the case. The order under challenge in the writ petition were orders dated 6.3.1997 passed by Revenue Appellate Authority, Udaipur in support of the present appellant setting aside the order of the Collector, Rajsamand dated 19.12.1996 for refusing conversion of the land in question. Against this order dated 6.3.1997 appeal No. 119/97 was preferred before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Ajmer which was dismissed on 14.10.1997 and a review application against the same No. 2/98 was also dismissed by the Board of Revenue on 20.5.1998. Thereafter about 7 months the writ petition in question has been filed by the Tehsildar. The learned single Judge without going into the details of the case by order dated 8.3.1999 though it to remand the case back to the Collector for deciding the matter afresh in accordance with the law. After giving opportunity of hearing to the appellant as according to the learned single Judge it would served the ends of justice. Aggrieved with that order the present appellant has filed this appeal amongst other particular ground that was taken in appeal was that State Govt. has already passed an order to circumvent the order passed by the State Govt. the writ petition was preferred the State Govt. Which was incompetent, and that material fact has been concealed by the petitioners. During the course of hearing of the appeal the learned Counsel for the appellant was also produced copy of the order dated 5.2.1998 addressed to the Collector, Rajsamand directing him to comply with the order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority on 6.3.1997. That is to say this order was conveying the decision of the Government after the appeal of the State has been rejected by the Board in October, 1997 to accept and comply with that order of Revenue Appellate Authority allowing the application of the applicant for conversion of land in question. Thereafter this petition has been filed which appears to be by Collector and Tehsildar without the Authority form the State Govt. In view of that the court made the following order dated 4.2.2000.”
During course of arguments, it is brought to our notice that the State Government, respondent No. 1 as passed the orders to comply with the order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority but the Tehsildar and the Collector have taken decision to contest the appeal. In order to know, the stand if the State Government, as to whether State Government wants to contest this appeal, we grant two weeks time to the learned Counsel.
3. Today Mr. Hemant Choudhary counsel for the respondent has produced in court a letter written by the Collector Rajsamand to the Secretary Revenue and Collination Deptt. on 31.3.2000. The material portion is read as under:
pwafd vkids foHkkx ds i=kad &Ik- ¼126½ jkt0Hkw0:@97 fnukad 5-2-1998 }kjk bl dk;kZy; dks ;g funsZ’k iznku fd;s gS fd jktLo vihy vf/kdkjh mn;iqj ds fu.kZ; fnukad 6-3-1997 dh ikyuk dh tkos A tks fd jkT;fgr ,oa jkT; i{k ds foijhr gS A ,slh fLFkfr ds ekeys es jkT; ljdkj ds m|ksx foHkkx ds vkns’k fnukad 7-12-1986 ,oa fnukad 23-6-1999 dh ikyuk es dfBukbZ gks jgh gSA rFkk ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; tks/kiqj es jkT; ljdkj ds fo:) izLrqr ekeys es Hkh jkT;fgr es jkT; i{k dh iSjoh djus es Hkh dkuwuh dfBukbZ mRiUu gks jgh gSA
pawfd jkT; ljdkj ds m|ksx foHkkx ds i=@vkns’k fnukad 7-12-1996 ,oa 23-6-1999 ds funsZ’kks dh dBksjrk ls ikyuk vko’;d gSA vr% fuosnu gS fd vkids ;gka ls izlkfjr i=kad Ik- ¼26½ jkt-Hkw-:-@97 fnukad 5-2-1998 ds funsZ’kks dk foMªk djkus dk d”V djkos A
Perusal of the aforesaid two paragraphs from the communication of the Collector to the Secretary Government of Rajasthan makes it abundantly clear that on the date when the petition was filed it has been filed contrary to the instruction to State Government and now realising the consequences of unauthorised act by the Collector, Rajsamand in filing petition in face of that order dated 5.3.1998 the request has been made to withdraw that order so that this litigation can be persued. The contents of the aforesaid letter unequivocally explains that in preferring this petition challenging the order of the Revenue Appellate Authority and the Board of Revenue the Collector Rajsamand has exceeded his limits of authority in pursuing litigation on behalf of State in defence of the orders of the State Government. The Collector himself is the incharge of the administration of the District cannot be in his wisdom finding the order of the State Government contrary to the public interest cannot be its own act contrary to it unless he obtains instructions from the State Government otherwise if without having recourse to such authority from the State he acts contrary to it, it would amount to subversion of discipline. Whatever may be authority if the Collector he does not reach overturning the decision of the State Government on its own he could only have requested to State Government to review its order.
4. In these circumstances we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the petition when filed as an officer incharge was wholly incompetent and relief could have been granted on the basis of that petition this appeal deserves to be allowed on this ground alone. The order is set aside. The writ petition is dismissed.