The main legal point established in the judgment is the necessity of following fair procedures prescribed by the Rules for providing equal opportunity to all concerned, as well as the interpretation and application of the non obstante clause in Rule 14.

Dinesh Maheshwari, J.-This writ petition has been submitted by the petitioner Smt. Sunder through her son Jhamanlal against the order dated 210.1994 (Annexure-4) passed by the Board of Revenue

for Rajasthan, Ajmer, whereby the learned Member of the Board accepted a revision submitted by Lunaram (respondent No. 5 herein) and set aside the allotment of a small patch land to the petitioner and directed the Allotting Authority to re-allot the land after following the necessary procedure as provided in the relevant rules.

2. Brief facts leading to the said order dated 210.1994, and consequently to this writ petition, may be summarized thus:

3. The petitioner is a khatedar tenant of 25 bighas of land in Murabba No. 95/37 in Chak 4 DLSM. She allegedly applied, through her son, for allotment of an adjoining piece of land of three bighas in Murabba No. 95/38 as "smal patch" of land under Rule 14 of the Rajasthan Colonisation (Allotment and Sale of Government Land in the Indira Gandhi Canal Colony Area) Rules, 1975, (hereinafter referred to as the Rule of 1975). The application for allotment was moved on 26.06.1986 and thereupon the Assistant Commissioner Colonisation, Chhatargarh, the Allotting Authority, passed an order on 28.06.1986 allotting this three bighas land as small patch under Rule 14 of the Rules of the 1975 to the petitioner while charging double the reserve price of the land.

4. The aforesaid order of allotment dated 28.06.1986 was subjected to appeal by the respondent No. 5 Lunaram on the grounds, inter alia, that this allotment order was passed at his back and without any notice to him although his application for allotment of this small patch land was pending at the time when the allotment was made in favour of the present petitioner. It was contended that when 22 bighas of land in Murabba No. 95/38 stood allotted to the appellant Lunaram and this fact was reported by the concerned Patwari, then it was required of the Allotting Authority to have invited the appellant also. It was also contended that the allotment order was fundamentally erroneous because the Allotting Authority has assumed 22 bighas of land in Murabba No. 95/38 of Chak 4 DLSM to be in allotment with the present petitioner whereas this 22 bighas of land in the said Murabba No. 95/38 was standing in allotment to the appellant Lunaram only. The allotment of small patch of land to the present petitioner assuming her to be the allottee of 22 bighas of land in Murabba No. 95/38 was invalid being based on erroneous assumption. It was also contended that the application submitted by the petitioner was suffering from a fundamental defect that it was not signed by her nor by the person through whom it was allegedly moved. It was, therefore, prayed that the allotment be cancelled.

5. The appeal so submitted by the respondent No. 5 Lunaram was dismissed by the Revenue Appellate Authority on 13.07.1989 on the consideration that from perusal of the record of the lower Court, no application of the appellant was found to be pending and, therefore, be could not be taken to be a person aggrieved. The Revenue Appellate Authority also observed that the disputed land was adjoining the land of the appellant and respondent both and, therefore, both the parties were entitled to have it allotted but the appellant having not made any application, allotment could not have been made to him. The learned Revenue Appellant Authority, of course, agreed with the submission that the application for allotment was not bearing any signature and also that the Allotting Authority in the order dated 28.06.1986 has assumed 22 bighas of land in Murabba No. 95/38 to be of Smt. Sunder widow of Chokha Ram (the present petitioner) whereas she was the allottee of land of Murabba No. 95/37. However, cogency and weight of these factors was eclipsed when the learned Revenue Appellate Authority found that the appellant Lunaram could not be taken to be a person aggrieved and, therefore, he was