JUDGMENT : Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. By the instant writ petition preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner Nagar Palika Parishad, Jaspur, is praying for the following reliefs: i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing/setting aside the impugned judgment and order dated 22.12.2025 passed by the Board of Revenue Uttarakhand Circuit Court Nainital in Revision No. 18/2024-25 under section 219 LAND REVENUE ACT ; whereby the concerned authority has quashed the order dated 09.01.2025 passed by Commissioner Kumaun Mandal Nainital. ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing/setting aside the impugned judgment and order dated 23.09.2020 passed by Assistant Collector 1st Class/Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jaspur (Udham Singh Nagar) in Misc. Case No. 04 of 2019-20 titled as “Mamta Devi & another vs. Nagar Palika Parishad Jaspur” whereby the concerned authority has approved the impugned demarcation report dated 14.09.2020 and ordered that as per spot inspection, the land of the petitioner having plot no. 302 measuring 0.039 hectare (i.e. 390 square meter) is included in N.H. – 74, without properly going through merits and records of the case. 2. Before arguing the matter Mr. D.S. Patni, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, submits that he is not pressing relief (ii) and the writ petition may be treated to be confined to relief (i). The other side have no objection and, as such, the relief (ii) is dismissed as not pressed. 3. The brief facts of the case in nutshell are that the Assistant Collector, Jaspur, District Udham Singh Nagar, passed an order on 23.09.2020 in Miscellaneous Case No. 04 of 2019-20 ‘Mamta Devi and Another vs. Nagar Palika Parishad Jaspur’ in compliance to the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this court dated 08.01.2018 in WPMS No. 881 of 2012, whereby, both the parties were directed to approach the competent authority for fresh demarcation of land falling in Khasra No. 302 measuring 0.093 hectare recorded in category 5 as barren land of Village Amritpur, Tehsil Jaspur. The Assistant Collector while passing this order observed that the land falling in Khasra No. 302 min. measuring 0.093 hectare falls in NH-74. 4. The Assistant Collector while passing this order observed that the land falling in Khasra No. 302 min. measuring 0.093 hectare falls in NH-74. 4. Being aggrieved with the order of Assistant Collector dated 23.09.2020 the petitioner herein filed a review petition before the Assistant Collector and the same was allowed on 28.10.2020 and the previous order dated 30.09.2020 was recalled and reviewed. 5. Being aggrieved with the order passed by the Assistant Collector dated 28.10.2020 on review application the respondent herein Smt. Mamta Devi preferred revision i.e. Revision No. 04 of 2020-21 before the Commissioner and the same was allowed on 03.02.2021 and the order passed by the Assistant Collector in the review application dated 28.10.2020 was set aside on the ground that Assistant Collector has no power to review its own order except clerical or arithmetical error. 6. Thereafter, what has happened the petitioner herein the Nagar Palika Parishad preferred another revision against the original order of Assistant Collector dated 23.09.2020 passed in Miscellaneous Case No. 4 of 2019-20 i.e. Revision No. 49/20- 21/55/20-21 ‘Nagar Palika Parishad vs. Smt. Mamta Devi and Another’; however, since there was certain defects in the memo of revision an application was moved on 12.08.2024 seeking withdrawal of the revision with a liberty to file afresh and the same was allowed by the Commissioner on 09.01.2025 and the Revision No. 49/20-21/55/20-21 was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file afresh. 7. Being aggrieved with the order of Commissioner dated 09.01.2025 the respondents herein approach to the Board of Revenue preferred Revision No. 18/2024-25 under section 219 of LAND REVENUE ACT titled as ‘Smt. Mamta Devi vs. Nagar Palika Parishad’ and the Board of Revenue by its order dated 22.12.2025 set aside the order of Commissioner dated 09.01.2025. 8. Now, being aggrieved with the order passed by the Board of Revenue dated 22.12.2025 the instant writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner Nagar Palika Parishad. 9. Mr. D.S. Patni, learned senior advocate for the petitioner argued that the order impugned passed by the Board of Revenue dated 22.12.2025 cannot sustain for the simple reason that the Commissioner by its order dated 09.01.2025 without touching the merit of the case permit the petitioner to withdraw the revision with the liberty to file fresh revision, therefore, the revision filed by the respondents before the Board of Revenue infact was not maintainable at all. He submits that the Board of Revenue exceeded their power and jurisdiction while passing order impugned by ignoring the fact that the original order of Assistant Collector dated 23.09.2020 was first time challenged before the Commissioner by way of Revision No. 04 of 2020-21 but since there was some defect the same was withdrawn with liberty to file fresh and permission was granted with the liberty to file fresh by the Commissioner by order dated 09.01.2025, therefore, there was no occasion to entertain the revision preferred against the order dated 09.01.2025. 10. Mr. D.S. Patni further advance his arguments by submitting that infact the Board of Revenue by order impugned deprive the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy by way of revision against the initial order of Assistant Collector dated 23.09.2020, which is wholly unwarranted and impermissible, therefore the order impugned passed by the Board of Revenue cannot sustain. 11. Mr. Patni further advance his argument by submitting that the original order of Assistant Collector dated 23.09.2020 was never been assailed by the petitioner and only the order of review dated 28.10.2020 was assailed by the respondents by way of a revision before the Commissioner and the Commissioner set aside the order passed on review application by order dated 03.02.2021 by observing that the Assistant Collector has no power to review it’s own order and it does not mean that the original order of Assistant Collector dated 23.09.2020 attains finality. 12. Mr. Patni submits that infact there was no illegality in the order of Commissioner dated 09.01.2025, whereby, the Revision No. 49/20-21/55/20-21 was permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to file fresh, therefore, the Board of Revenue should dismiss the revision preferred by the respondents against the innocuous order of Commissioner dated 09.01.2025 since by virtue of this order the respondents were not at all prejudiced in any manner, but instead of dismissing the Revision No. 18/2024- 25 at its threshold the Board of Revenue touch the merit of the original order of Assistant Collector dated 23.09.2020, which infact was not the subject matter before the Board of Revenue. Mr. Mr. Patni bring to the notice the operative part of the order of Commissioner dated 09.01.2025, which read as under: ^^vr% mijksDr rF;ksa ,oa foospu ds vk/kkj ij fuxjkuhdrkZ }kjk izLrqr izkFkZuk i= fnukad 12-08-2024 Lohdkj fd;k tkrk gS A fuxjkuhdrkZ dks orZeku fuxjkuh okil fy;s tkus dh vuqefr iznku dh tkrh gSA fuxjkuh mijksDrkuqlkj fuLrkfjr dh tkrh gSA fuxjkuhdrkZ ubZ fuxjkuh izLrqr fd;s tkus gsrq Lora= gSA voj U;k;ky; vfHkys[k okil gksA ckn fe;kn i=koyh nkf[ky nQrj gksA^^ By referring the operative portion of the Commissioner learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Board off Revenue exceeded it’s power and jurisdiction while passing the order impugned. 13. Learned senior counsel concluded his argument by submitting that infact the order impugned passed by the Board of Revenue the petitioner herein, which is a local body, has been deprived to avail the statutory remedy to prefer revision against the original order of Assistant Collector dated 23.09.2020. 14. On the other side Mr. Aditya Singh, learned counsel for the caveator/respondents vehemently oppose the submissions of Mr. Patni. He submits that infact the original order of Assistant Collector dated 23.09.2020 was confirmed by the Commissioner pursuant to order dated 03.02.2021 and once the same was confirmed there was any question for giving liberty to the petitioner to prefer revision against the order, which was already confirmed. 15. Mr. Aditya Singh further argued that the order of Commissioner dated 03.02.2021 was never been challenged by the petitioner and, therefore, the original order of Assistant Collector dated 23.09.2020 attains finality and, therefore, there was no question for giving liberty to avail the remedy to prefer revision against the order dated 23.09.2020, since the second revision is barred and tantamount of review of order passed by the Commissioner dated 03.02.2021, which is not permissible in terms of section 202 of the LAND REVENUE ACT and, therefore, the order impugned passed by the Board of Revenue is just and proper and writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 16. Heard the arguments as advanced by learned counsel for the parties at length and peruse the order impugned as well as the order passed by the Assistant Collector dated 23.09.2020 as well as the order passed by the Assistant Collector on review application dated 28.10.2020 and also the order dated 03.02.2021 passed by the Commissioner and subsequent order of Commissioner dated 09.01.2025. 17. 17. Undisputedly, the Assistant Collector passed the order dated 28.10.2020 on a review petition filed by the petitioner seeking review of the original order of Assistant Collector dated 23.09.2020, whereby, the original order dated 23.09.2020 was recalled and the review was allowed. Against the order passed on review dated 28.10.2020 the respondents preferred Revision No. 04 of 2020-21, which was allowed by the Commissioner on 03.02.2021, on perusal of which it reveals that the Revision No. 04 of 2020-21 was only confined to the order passed on review dated 28.10.2020 and the same was allowed only on the ground that the Assistant Collector has no power to review it’s own order. At this juncture the relevant extract of the order of Commissioner dated 03.02.2021 is being reproduced herein as under: ÞmDr izLrj 4 esa fd;s x;s foospu ds vk/kkj ij eSa bl fu"d"kZ ij igqaprk gwa fd voj U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ;@vkns'k fnukad 28-10-2020 fo|eku rF;ksa ,oa fof/kd O;oLFkk ds laxr u gksus ds dkj.k nks"kiw.kZ gSA vr% fuxjkuh Lohdkj dh tkrh gS rFkk voj U;k;ky; dk fu.kZ; ,oa vkns'k fnukda 28-10-2020 fujLr fd;k tkrk gsA voj U;k;ky; dh i=koyh izR;kofrZr dj nh tk; rFkk bl U;k;ky; dh okn% i=koyh lafpr vfHkys[kkxkj dj nh tk;Aß Thus, the arguments as advanced by Mr. Aditya Singh, learned counsel for the caveator/respondent, that by order dated 03.02.2021 the Commissioner confirmed the original order dated 23.09.2020 is completely misconceived and outrightly rejected for the simple reason that before the Commissioner there was no challenge to the original order dated 23.09.2020. 18. The another argument of Mr. Aditya Singh is that the order of Commissioner dated 03.02.2021 was not assailed by the petitioner, whereby, the original order dated 23.09.2020 was confirmed and, as such, it attains finality, cannot be accepted for the simple reason that the order dated 03.02.2021 was only confined to the order of review dated 28.10.2020, which was recalled and reviewed on the ground that Assistant Collector has no power to review it’s own order and it does not mean the initial order dated 23.09.2020 attains finality. Therefore, this court is of the view that if the order dated 03.02.2021 was not assailed then the same will not curtail the right of the petitioner to avail remedy to challenge the initial order dated 23.09.2020. 19. Therefore, this court is of the view that if the order dated 03.02.2021 was not assailed then the same will not curtail the right of the petitioner to avail remedy to challenge the initial order dated 23.09.2020. 19. On close scrutiny of the entire order of the Commissioner dated 03.02.2021 it is very clear that the revision was allowed only on the ground that the Assistant Collector has no power to review it’s own order and set aside the order of review dated 28.10.2020. 20. So far as the argument of Mr. Aditya Singh that the second revision is barred and tantamount to review of order of Commissioner dated 03.02.2021 is concerned, this argument cannot be accepted for the simple reason that initial order of Assistant Collector dated 23.09.2020 was never been challenged except by way of review petition which was allowed by order dated 28.10.2020, which was subsequently set aside by the Commissioner by order dated 03.02.2021. 21. So far as the order impugned passed by the Board of Revenue dated 22.12.2025 is concerned, Revision No. 18/2024-25 is admittedly the said revision was preferred against the order dated 09.01.2025, whereby, the Commissioner gives permission to withdraw the revision with liberty to file fresh, therefore infact there was no order on the revision on merit and as such the revision preferred before the Board of Revenue was not maintainable and in such an eventuality Board of Revenue should dismiss the revision on the ground of maintainability. 22. In view of the discussions and observations as above, instant writ petition is allowed. The impugned judgment and order passed by the Board of Revenue dated 22.12.2025 passed in Revision No. 18/2024-25 is also hereby quashed. 23. No order as to costs.