B.S. Chauhan, J.
1. The instant writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 31.5.2000 (Annx. 2), by which the revision filed by the respondent has been allowed by the Additional District, Judge Chittorgarh.
2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the contesting respondent No. 4 filed a revision before respondent No. 2 that vide order dated 20.2.1988, the land has been allotted to the present petitioner without following the procedure required under the law. The Revisional Authority issued notice to the other parties and after hearing them, the revision has been allowed. Hence this petition.
3. Learned Revisional Authority recorded the following findings of facts.
(i) The original record of the Gram Panchayat was summoned. There was nothing on record to show that any proceeding in respect of the land in dispute had ever took place on 20.9.1987.
(ii) No inquiry had been conducted prior to the allotment;
(iii) The land could have been allotted without charges only to the persons belonging to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes, artisans or landless farmers for the purpose of residents. Petitioner did not belong to that category;
(iv) There was nothing on record to show that the allottee had ever applied for allotment of the said land before Gram Sabha;
(v) The allotment was in flagrant violation of the statutory requirements and, thus, liable to be quashed; and
(vi) The Additional Collector was competent to entertain the revision as the definition of 'District Collector' included Additional Collector and the revisional power of the State Government under Section 97 had been delegated to the District Collector.
4. In a limited jurisdiction of judicial review, the findings of facts recorded by the learned Revisional Authority do not require any interference.
5. The submission made by Mr. Charan that revision could not have been entertained by the Additional Collector directly without approaching the Appellate Authority, is also of no substance in view of the judgment of this Court in Hari Singh v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. 1987 (1) RLR 387; and a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Varihad Krishi Ryanadtri Samiti Ltd. v. Revenue Appellate Authority 1998 (2)RLR 331, wherein it has categorically been held that even without approaching the Appellate Authority, revision is maintainable.
6. Similarly, a Full Bench of this Court in Chiman Lal v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. 2000 (2)RLW 911, vide judgment and order dated 18.2.2000, has considered the aspect of interference in allotment at a very belated stage and held that the revisional powers can be exercised at any time provided (i) the order has been obtained by fraud; (ii) order is obtained by mis-representation or collusion with public authority by the private party; (iii) order is against public interest; (iv) the order is without jurisdiction; (v) order is in clear violation of the statutory rules or provision of the Act; and (vi) order is void/void ab initio being against public policy or otherwise.
7. The Court further observed as under:
The Common Law doctrine of public policy can be enforced wherever an action affects/offends public interest or where harmful result of permitting the injury to the public at large is evident. In such type of cases, revisional power can be exercised by the Authority at any time either suo moto or as and when such orders are brought to their notice.
8. In Maharaja Chintamani Sarannath v. State of Haryana and Ors. : AIR1999SC3609 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that even if the order is found to be bad/illegal/without jurisdiction, the Courts may not interfere if setting-aside the order amounts to reviving an invalid order.'
9. Similar view had been reiterated in Gadde Venkateshwara Rao v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. : [1966]2SCR172 .
10. Thus, in view of the above, I find no force in the petition and it is hereby dismissed.