The court's decision was based on the correct interpretation of the rules governing land allotment and the principles of natural justice under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

1. 1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India purporting to be under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by petitioner on 25-7-90 against the respondents with a prayer that the order dated 17-9-83 (Annex.6) passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority. Bikaner camp Sri Ganganagar (respondent No.3) by which appeal of respondent No.4 (Neer Singh) was allowed and allotment of land made in favour of the petitioner through order dated 10-1-83 (Annex.4) passed by SDO, Nohar was set aside, and the judgment of Board of Revenue, Ajmer (respondent Not) dated 3-3-86 (Annex.1) by which appeal of the petitioner against the judgment dated 17-9-83 (Annex.6) passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner (respondent No.3) was dismissed and the judgment dated 7-5-90 (Annex.2) by which review petition filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by the Board of Revenue (respondent No.2) be quashed and set aside.

2. The facts of the case as put forward by the petitioner are as under :

i) That a land bearing khasra No.239 measuring 20 bighas and 16 biswas was allotted to the petitioner by the SDO, Nohar through order dated 10-1-83 (Annex.4).

ii) Against the allotment of land made in favour of the petitioner through order dated 10-1- 83, the respondent No.4 (Neer Singh) preferred an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner camp Sri Ganganagar (respondent No.3) and the Revenue Appellate Authority through judgment dated 17-9-83 (Annex.6) allowed the appeal filed by respondent No.4 (Neer Singh) holding that possession of respondent No.4 (Heer Singh) was found on the disputed land and the land which was in possession of respondent No.4 (Neer Singh) should not have been allotted to 3rd party unless and until, he was dispossessed from that land under the provisions of Section 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act.

iii) Aggrieved from the judgment dated 17-9-83 (Annex.6), passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner (respondent No.3), the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Board of Revenue (Respondent No.2) and the Board of Revenue through judgment dated 3-3-86 (Annex.1) dismissed the appeal of the petitioner inter alia holding that:

a) That order of allotment dated 10-1-83 (Annex.4) passed by the SDO, Nohar was bad in law as the allotment of land was in contravention of Rule 13 (3A) of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Land for agricultural Purposes) Rules, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1970) as quorum of the Land Allotment Advisory Committee was not complete in the manner that at the time of allotment, only two members were present in the Advisory Committee, whereas three members should have been present in the Advisory Committee except Sub Divisional Officer.

b) That the land which was allotted to the petitioner was in the possession of respondent No.4 (Heer Singh) and, therefore, respondent No.4 (Heer Singh) was necessary party and further more since for allotment of land, application of respondent No.4 (Neer Singh) was pending, that application should have been considered and decided before allotting the land-to the petitioner. Thus, allotment of land made in favour of the petitioner through order dated 10-1- 84 (Annex.4) passed by the SDO, Nohar was not in accordance with law.

iv) That aggrieved from the judgment dated 3-3-86 (Annex.1) passed by the Board of Revenue (respondent No.2), the petitioner preferred a review petition before the Board of Revenue (respondent No.2) and the Board of Revenue through its judgment dated 7-5-90 (Annex.2) dismissed the review petition filed by the petitioner and in the judgment dated 7-5-90 in para 4, the Board of Revenue observed that the petitioner had himself agreed in para 5 of the application that at the time of allotment, only two members were present, and therefore, the quorum was incomplete.

v) Aggrieved from the judgments dated 17-9- 83 (Annex.6) passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner (respondent No.