The main legal point established in the judgment is that a subsequent change in law cannot be applied retrospectively, and a right already accrued cannot be taken away by retrospective application of law.

Govind Mathur, J.-Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2. The facts required to be noticed to adjudicate instant writ petition are that a land measuring 3 bighas and 15 biswas was allotted under Bhakhra Project (Government Land Allotment and Sale) Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 1955”) in chak 8 KRW Square No. 84/117, Kila Nos. 1, 2 & 10 and also in chak No. 3 SDS Murrabba No. 83/117 Kila No.15 to Shri Bhagirath by competent authority. Aforesaid Shri Bhagirath was ejected form the aforesaid land as he transferred the land illegally to certain other persons. Shri Bhagirath was ejected from land after following the procedure prescribed under Section 175 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1955”).

3. The land from which Shri Bhagirath was ejected was subsequently allotted to the petitioner by an order dated 04.08.1981 under the Rules of 1955 under “Antyodaya” Scheme being a person belonging to below poverty line.

4. The allotment made in favour of the petitioner was challenged by Smt. Mamkaur widow of Bhagirath by way of filling an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner. The Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner by an order dated 30.08.1982 accepted the appeal preferred by Smt. Mamkaur by directing Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Hanumangarh to reconsider the issue with regard to allotment of land to the petitioner. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Hanumangarh in pursuance of the order dated 30.08.1982 reconsidered the matter afresh and by order dated 27.03.1984 allotted the land in dispute to Smt. Mamkaur. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Hanumangarh while cancelling the allotment made in favour of the petitioner and making allotment in favour of Smt. Mamkaur held that in view of provisions of Sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 of the Rules of 1955 the land from which Shri Bhagirath, a person belonging to Scheduled Caste, was ejected, therefore, it could have been allotted to a member of Scheduled Caste only. The Sub Divisional Magistrate held that the allotment could not be made in favour of petitioner Ram Chander being Kumhar by caste.

5. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 27.3.1984 passed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Hanumangarh preferred an appeal before Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner but the same was also rejected by Judgment dated 112.1984. The validity of Judgment dated 112.1984 was also challenged by the petitioner by way of filing a revision petition before the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer under Rule 18 (2) of the Rules of 1955. The Board of Revenue Rajasthan, Ajmer also rejected the revision petition by Judgment dated 04.03.1992 the Board of Revenue while affirming the orders passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Hanumangarh and the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner held that the land which was allotted to the petitioner became available on ejectment of Shri Bhagirath who was a member of Scheduled Caste, therefore, in view of Sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 of the Rules of 1955 the same could have been allotted to a person belonging to Scheduled Caste only. Being aggrieved by the orders passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Hanumangarh, Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner and the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer, the instant writ petition is preferred by the petitioner under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India.

6. No reply to the writ petition has been filed on behalf of the respondents.

7. The contention of Counsel for the petitioner is that the orders impugned suffer from manifest error which requires interference of this Court while exercising extraordinary jurisdiction as the Courts below failed to appreciate that Sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 of the Rules of 1955 came into force being added to Sub-rule (3) of the Rules of 1955 under a notification dated 211.1983 whereas the land in dispute was allotted to the petitioner on 04.08.1981, as such Sub-rule (3) has been wrongly applied in present case.

8. It is admitted