The word “son” in Rules 4(4) and 13(5)(b) of the 1975 Rules shall be read as “issue” to include females also.

J.S. Verma, CJ.-This appeal is against the common judgment of a learned Single Judge in a bunch of writ petitions by which the writ petitions were partly allowed. The common judgment is Jani Bai vs. State of Rajasthan, ILR (1980) 30 Raj 306. The State has preferred appeals against the relief granted in the writ petitions while the petitioners have preferred appeals against refusal of remaining reliefs. One similar writ petition has also been connected with these matters. All these matters are, therefore, disposed of by this common judgment.

2. At the hearing of the above matters only two points were raised. We shall mention these points before

stating the material facts and the statutory provisions on which these points arise. The first point relates to the validity of the expression “since before 1st day of April. 1955” occurring in Rule 7(2) and Rule 2(xv) of the Rajasthan Colonisation (Allotment and Sale of Government Land in the Rajasthan Canal Colony Area) Rules, 1975 which has been struck down as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution by the learned Single Judge. The other point relates to the construction of Rule 4(4) and Rule 13(5)(b) of the 1975 Rules relating to which petitioner’s contention has been rejected. The State of Rajasthan has preferred appeals against the decision of the learned Single Judge striking down as invalid a part of Rules 7(2) and 2(xv). The petitioners have preferred appeals against rejection of their content ion relating to Rules 4(4) and 13(5)(b).

3. The only material fact common to all these matters is that petitioners claim allotment of land under the provisions of the aforesaid 1975 Rules not only for the adult son under Rule 13(5)(b) but also for the adult daughter who is otherwise equally eligible like the adult son for allotment of the land. The eligibility in Rule 7(2) and Rule 2(xv) with reference to 1st April, 1955 is challenged as arbitrary classification.

4. The background in which the Rajasthan Colonisation (Allotment and Sale of Government Land in Rajasthan Canal Colony Area) Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1975 Rules’) came to be made is detailed in the judgment of the learned Single Judge in Jani Bai case (ILR (1980) 30 Raj 306) (supra). We shall, therefore, refer only to the salient features for ready reference. It may be mentioned that the earlier set of Rules framed on the subject were struck down by the Supreme Court in Jaila Singh vs. State of Rajasthan. AIR 1975 SC 1436 and thereafter these 1975 Rules came to be framed These Rules are framed under Rajasthan Colonisation Act, 1954 (for brevity ‘the Act’) which was enacted to make better provision for the colonisation and administration of lands. Section 7 of the Act enables the State Government to grant land in a colony to any person on such conditions as may be prescribed. The State Government is also empowered to issue a statement of the conditions on which it is willing to grant land in a colony to tenants. The remaining part of the section provides for allotment of land by the Collector subject to the control of the State Government and subject to the conditions contained in the statement issued by the State Government. Section 28 of the Act contains the general power of the State Government to make Rules by issue of notification for the purposes of the Act and in particular for all matters which are required by the Act to be prescribed thereunder. Section 29 requires every Rule made and every statement of conditions or notification issued by the State Government under any provision of this Act to be laid before the house of the State Legislature which has power to rescind or modify the same. This is how the ultimate power of control is retained with the State Legislature under Section 29 of the Act.

5. TheRajasthan Colonisation (Allotment and Sale of Government Land in the Rajasthan Canal Colony Area) Rules, 1975 have been made by the State Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Sec