ORDER

1. THE APPELLANT MADE AN APPLICATION ON 5-9-1962 FOR GRANT OF GOVERNMENT LAND UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE RAJASTHAN COLONISATION (GANG CANAL LANDS PERMANENT ALLOTMENT AND SALE) RULES, 1956 (FOR SHORT "THE RULES"). THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER (REVENUE), GANGANAGAR ON 22-10-1964, ALLOTTED 46 BIGHAS AND 16 BISWAS OF LAND TO ROSHANLAL, FATHER OF THE PRESENT APPELLANTS. IN THAT ORDER OF ALLOTMENT, IT HAD BEEN STATED THAT ROSHANLAL HAD BEEN AN AGRICULTURIST SINCE 1947. A COMPLAINT WAS MADE ON 29-7-1966 ALLEGING THAT THE ALLOTMENT OF LAND WAS OBTAINED BY ROSHANLAL BY MISREPRESENTING FACTS AND THAT HE WAS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR ALLOTMENT OF LAND. THE ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR (ADMINISTRATION), BY HIS ORDER DATED 8-2-1982, CANCELLED THE ALLOTMENT OF LAND MADE IN FAVOUR OF ROSHANLAL. THE SAID ORDER WAS CHALLENGED BEFORE THE REVENUE APPELLATE AUTHORITY, BIKANER, IN APPEAL, WHICH WAS DISMISSED ON 12-3-1984. THE MATTER DID NOT REST THEREAT. ROSHANLAL FILED SECOND APPEAL BEFORE THE BOARD OF REVENUE, WHICH WAS DISMISSED BY THE BOARD OF REVENUE CONCURRING WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT RECORDED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE BOARD OF REVENUE HELD THAT THE CANCELLATION OF ALLOTMENT MADE IN FAVOUR OF ROSHANLAL WAS PROPER. A REVIEW APPLICATION WAS FILED BEFORE THE BOARD OF REVENUE SEEKING REVIEW OF ITS A ORDER, WHICH WAS ALSO DISMISSED. IT IS THEREAFTER THAT ROSHANLAL FILED WRIT PETITION BEFORE THE HIGH COURT. THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT, BY HIS ORDER DATED 12-5-1998, DID NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE WRIT PETITION AND, CONSEQUENTLY, DISMISSED IT, AFFIRMING THE ORDER MADE BY THE BOARD OF REVENUE. THE VALIDITY AND CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE WAS QUESTIONED BEFORE THE DIVISION BENCH OF THE HIGH COURT IN SPECIAL B APPEAL. THE DIVISION BENCH OF THE HIGH COURT AS WELL DID NOT FIND ANY GOOD REASON OR VALID GROUND TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE. THE NARRATION OF THESE FACTS SHOW THAT EVERY ONE OF THE AUTHORITIES AND THE HIGH COURT HAVE CONCURRENTLY RECORDED FINDINGS OF FACT AGAINST THE APPELLANTS CONCLUDING THAT THE CANCELLATION OF THE ALLOTMENT OF LAND MADE IN FAVOUR OF ROSHANLAL WAS PROPER. THE APPELLANTS ARE BEFORE US IN C THIS APPEAL, AGGRIEVED BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER MADE BY THE DIVISION BENCH OF THE HIGH COURT.

2. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS CONTENDED THAT ALTHOUGH CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF FACT ARE RECORDED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AGAINST THE APPELLANTS, AS AFFIRMED BY THE HIGH COURT, BUT THERE ARE ERRORS IN THEIR FINDINGS AND APPROACH. ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED COUNSEL, THE ALLOTMENT MADE D IN FAVOUR OF ROSHANLAL WAS ON PROPER CONSIDERATION; ROSHANLAL WAS A LANDLESS PERSON AND HE WAS PERSONALLY CULTIVATING THREE BIGHAS OF LAND; AND THE HOLDING OF HIS FATHER WAS WRONGLY INCLUDED FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSIDERING WHETHER HE WAS A LANDLESS PERSON OR NOT. ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED COUNSEL, EVEN THE FINDING THAT ROSHANLAL WAS NOT A RESIDENT OF THE CHAK WHEREIN THE LAND IS SITUATED IS ALSO NOT CORRECT. HE RELIED UPON THE DECISIONS OF THIS COURT E IN BRIJ LAI V. BOARD OF REVENUE1 AND MANSARAM V. S.P. PATHAK2 IN SUPPORT OF HIS SUBMISSION THAT AFTER A LONG LAPSE OF TIME, THE APPELLANTS SHOULD NOT BE DISPOSSESSED OR DISTURBED FROM THE LAND WHICH WAS ALLOTTED TO ROSHANLAL.

3. IN OPPOSITION, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3, MADE SUBMISSIONS SUPPORTING THE IMPUGNED ORDER, POINTING OUT TO THE ELABORATE ORDER MADE BY THE REVENUE APPELLATE AUTHORITY WHEREIN THE FACTS HAVE BEEN F CLEARLY STATED AND FINDINGS ARE RECORDED WITH REFERENCE TO THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD.

4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RESPECTIVE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES. ROSHANLAL WAS NOT THE RESIDENT OF THE CHAK IS A FINDING OF FACT RECORDED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ON APPRECIATION OF THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD WHICH FINDING WAS ALSO AFFIRMED BY THE HIGH COURT. ONE OF 9 THE CONDITIONS FOR ELIGIBILITY OF ALLOTMENT OF LAND UNDER RULE 3(1)(VIII)(B) OF THE RULES IS THAT A PERSON CLAIMING THE ALLOTMEN