The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for a correct interpretation of the law in determining the status of a landless person and the authority to cancel agricultural land allotment. The judgment emphasizes the importance of a harmonious interpretation of the rules and provisions, considering the overall purpose of the legislation.

Mohammad Rafiq, J.-This special appeal is directed against the Judgment of learned Single Judge dated 110.1995, whereby writ petition filed by the petitioner against the Judgment s/orders of the Board of Revenue, Ajmer, Revenue Appellate Authority, Jodhpur and Additional Collector, Barmer was dismissed.

In the writ petition, the appellant contended that Tehsildar Shiv in consultation with the Advisory Committee allotted to him agricultural land measuring 23 bighas in Khasra No. 835 of Village Shiv Tehsil Shiv by order dated 01.02.1963. He was put in possession of the land in the year 1963 itself and ever since he was in cultivatory possession of the same. The allotment of land was made under the provisions of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Land for Agricultural Purposes) Rules, 1957 (in short, “the Rules of 1957”).

By virtue of the provisions of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 14 of the Rules of 1957, khatedari rights stood conferred upon the petitioner after expiry of period of ten years. Rule 14(4) of the Rules of 1957 provides for the conditions of resumption of the land, according to which the land could be resumed only when it was not under cultivation in accordance with Sub-rule (3) of Rule 14 and it was not properly utilized or it was sublet or transferred in contravention of the provisions of the Tenancy Act or if it was found that the allottee was not a landless person as defined in Clause (iii) of Rule 2. According to the appellant, neither the Tehsildar nor the State Government took any steps to resume the land in question from the petitioner till he acquired khatedari rights of the land. Rules of 1957 were later repealed by the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Land for Agricultural Purposes) Rules, 1970 (in short “Rules of 1970”). According to the appellant, neither the Tehsildar nor the State Government took any steps to resume the land in question from the petitioner till he acquired khatedari rights of the land. Rules of 1957 were later repealed by the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Land for Agricultural Purposes) Rules, 1970 (in short “Rules of 1970”). According to the appellant, Rule 21 of the Rules of 1970 saved all those allotments which were made under the Rules of 1957 though there was no provision in the Rules of 1970 for resuming the lands allotted under the Rules of 1957. Tehsildar, Shiv, moved an application before the Additional Collector, Barmer in the year, 1984. This was an application purported to have been made under Sub-rule (4) of Rule 14 of the Rules of 1970 for cancellation of the allotment made in favour of the appellant on the ground that he was not a landless person at the time of allotment. This application was contested by the appellant. In his reply, he contended that he was very much a landless person at the time of allotment made in his favour under the Rules of 1957. It was further contended that Rule 14(4) of the Rules of 1970 could not be invoked for cancellation of the allotment made under the Rules of 1957. Moreover since the appellant has now acquired the khatedari rights over the land in question, allotment made in his favour could not be cancelled after expiry of 21 years. The Additional Collector, Barmer however by his order dated 12.1985 cancelled the allotment on the premise that the appellant had a notional share of 116 bighas and 14 biswas in the ancestral lands held by his father and according to the circular of the Revenue Department dated 210.1968, a person in Tehsil, Shiv, of District Barmer was to be considered as a landless person only if he held less than 50 bighas of land. The appellant filed an appeal against the aforesaid order of Additional Collector before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Jodhpur which was also dismissed on 012.1990. He thereafter preferred a further appeal before the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer which was also dismissed by order dated 27.06.1995. It was against orders of cancellation of allotment made by the Additio