A condition that restricts access to justice by requiring the deposit of a security sum is arbitrary and unreasonable, and violates Article 14 of the Constitution.

RAJESH BALIA, J.

( 1 ) AS common issues have been raised in all the petitions mentioned-above, the same are being disposed off by a common judgment.

( 2 ) IN all the aforesaid petitions the Board of Revenue has refused to entertain second appeal/revision of the petitioners on the ground that petitioners have not deposited 25% of the reserved price of land allotted to the petitioners as per the requirement of the relevant rule of the Rules under which the application for allotment of land of the petitioners were refused or allotment already made under the said rules in favour of the petitioners have been cancelled.

( 3 ) THE relevant Rule l0a of the Rajathan Colonisation (Allotment of Government Land to Pong Dam Oustees in Rajasthan Canal Colony Area) Rules 1972 (in short hereinafter called as the pong Dam Rules) and Rule 23a of the Rajasthan Colonisation (Allotment and Sale of Government Land in Rajasthan Canal Colony Area) Rules 1975 (in short hereinafter called as the rules of 1975), which was inserted in the said rules framed under the Rajasthan Colonisation Act, 1954 on different dates read as under:-"any person against whom an order cancelling his allotment of land has been passed or whose application for allotment of land has been rejected by the allotting authority and such order or decision of the allotting authority has been upheld in the first appeal, shall, if he prefers a second appeal or a revision to deposit 25% of the reserved price of such land as security in the Government treasury and furnish a copy of the challan with the memo of appeal, revision or review. In case of his failure to make such deposit, the second appeal or revision or the review shall not be entertained. "rule 23a in the Rules of 1975 was inserted on 21-4-1984 and Rule l0a in Pong Dam Rules was inserted on 18-1-1985. In all these petitions the validity of the aforesaid rule has been challenged. Firstly, on the ground that the rule is ultra vires provisions of the Act and it was therefore, not within the competence of the rule making authority to have at all framed such rule and, secondly, the rule is otherwise ultra vires Art. 14 of the Constitution being requirement to deposit to the extent of 25% of land price entertain appeal/revision/review has no nexus to the purpose sought to be achieved and is otherwise arbitrary.

( 4 ) BEFORE proceeding further, we may briefly notice relevant facts in each case :-cases UNDER PONG DAM RULES (1) D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2552/87 Mehar Chand v. State of Raj and others. Smt. Samjhodevi, since deceased and grand-mother of the petitioner Mehar Chand, was allotted 25 bighas of land on 30/04/1971 under the Pong Dam Rules. The possession in pursuance of the allotment was delivered on 13/03/1971. The said allotment made in favour of Samjhodevi was cancelled by Allotting Authority on 22-11-1974 for alleged breach of allotment condition. However, the allottee remained in possession of the land. By Notification dated 22/04/1982, Rule 8a was inserted in the Pong Dam Rules for reviewing the order for cancellation of allotment. An application under Rule 8a was submitted by said Smt. Samjhodevi. Before the application could be decided, Smt. Samjhodevi expired on 25-9-1982. On 29-8-1984 petitioner filed an application before Allotting Authority as grandson and heir of Samjhodevi that Samjhodevis application under Rule 8a may be decided. After the said application on 29-10-1984 Rule 8aa was inserted in the said rules. Ultimately, the application under Rule 8a was rejected for reviewing the order of cancellation of allotment on 28-6-1985. The appeal against the said order dated 28-6-1985 was also rejected by the Revenue Appellate Authority on 29-5-1986. Aggrieved against the said order petitioner filed a revision before the Board of Revenue, which the Board of Revenue refused to entertain vide its order dated 28-7-1988, Annexure 4, for want of failure on the part of the petitioner to deposit 25% of the re