K.S. Rathore, J.-Despite service, none appeared on behalf of the State. This is not the solitary case but in almost all the hearing cases neither the Government Advocate nor other representative on behalf of the Government is appearing to represent the case. Time and again, this Court informed the Advocate General also to take appropriate steps in this regard. Now, its high time for the Advocate General to take appropriate steps and action against such law officers and make appropriate arrangements otherwise without any assistance of the law officer, this Court has no option other than to consider the reply submitted on behalf of the State and decide the case.

2. This writ petition is directed against the Judgment passed by the Additional Collector, Sawaimadhopur dated 011.1992 and the Board of Revenue dated 02.07.1996 in appeal and 10.09.1996 in review petition.

3. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner categorically stated in this review petition that before deciding the right under Rule 17(4) of the Ceiling Rules, 1963 and without considering the claim of the petitioner has passed the order and declared the surplus land which is contrary to law.

4.