The central legal point established in the judgment is the limitation on land allotment and Khatedari rights, as determined by the classification of the land and the relevant provisions of the Act of 1956, Rules of 1970, and the Tenancy Act.

1. The present special appeal is filed against a decision of learned Single Judge of this Court. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding inter alia that the writ petition in question was filed after considerable delay. The learned Single Judge noted that the earlier filed writ petition was withdrawn on 07.01.1999 and the second writ petition, which is in question. Was filed after 18 months of delay. The learned Single Judge noticed that the petitioner wants to usurp the land by hook and crook. For decision of this special appeal it would be necessary to look into facts of the case because the learned counsel urged that the learned Single Judge has not dealt on the facts of the case in detail and has on technical grounds dismissed the appeal. We are therefore, going in for examination of the facts in detail.

2. Near the city of Nagaur, a chunk of 150 Bhighas of land was allotted to Housing Board for developing housing cluster. The appellant petitioners claim Khatedari rights on 27 Bighas of land which is situated in proximity of the lands allotted to the Housing Board. Revenue Authorities felt that petitioners are trespassers and a notice under Section 91 of the Rajasthan Land revenue Act, 1956 [hereinafter referred as the Act of 1956] was issued. An appeal was filed before the Collector against the order of Tehsildar. The Collector upheld the order of Tehsildar by its order dated 09.08.1990. An appeal was preferred by Hanif Khan before the Revenue Appellate Authority wherein the matter was remanded back to the Collector. The Collector once again rejected the claim of Hanif Khan.

3. The Judgment of the Collector was once again challenged before the Revenue Appellate Authority. A Commissioner was appointed by the Revenue Appellate Authority to look into the matter. Finally, Revenue Appellate Authority ordered that Hanif Khan was entitled to the allotment of land measuring 27 Bighas. It was to be distributed amongst the three present petitioners. The Khatedari rights were ordered to be conferred on Hanif Khan under Rule 20 of the Allotment of Land for Agriculture Purposes Rules, 1970 [hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1970]

4. Rule 20 of the said rules is reprodced herewith for ready reference.

20. Allotment of land to trespassers.-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, subject to the specific or general direction of the State Government, the Sub-Divisional Officer may on the advice of the Advisory Committee, instead of ejecting a trespasser from any land occupied by him without any lawful authority, allow him to retain such land if he is a [landless agriculturist] and the total area of land held by such person including the land so allotted does not exceed 75 Bighas in, Barani areas of the former Bikaner Division. Barmer District (except Siwana Tehsil), Jaisalmer District and Tehsils Shergarh, Phalodi and Osian excluding 40 villages as mentioned in Schedule I of Jodhpur District, not covered by any irrigation project and 15 Bighas in any other part of the State and that the land so allotted does not fall within the categories specified in Rule 4 of these Rules.]

(2) [Upon such allotment, the allottee] shall be bound by the conditions of allotment laid down in these rules and Khatedari right shall accrue to him as if his case was of allotment under these rules.

5. A revision was preferred before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue held that the order of Revenue Appellate Authority as far as the question of bestowing of Khatedari rights are concerned is not correct. However, the matter is to be considered for regularization by the Sub-Divisional Officer. The petitioners contended that State Government has not challenged the order of Board of Revenue and it has attained finality. A copy of the Judgment of the Board of Revenue was submitted before the S.D.O. Nagaur and S.D.O. entered the mutation of 25.05.1995. Subsequently, such mutation was ordered to be cancelled b