1. - By this writ petition, the petitioner Sharif S/o Mallar has challenged concurrent findings of three Revenue Courts below cancelling his allotment of 75 bighas of land in Khasra No. 394 situated in village Tamlor, Tehsil Sheo, Dist. Barmer. The said allotment of 75 bighas of land in question was given to him, when the petitioner Sharif was a minor of only 11 years of age under the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Land for Agriculture Purposes) Rules, 1970, which provides for allotment of Government land to bona fide agriculturist, who is a landless person.

2. On an application filed by the Tehsildar Sheo, Dist. Barmer on 10.6.1981, the learned Assistant Collector vide his order dated 11.4.1984 cancelled the said allotment finding that despite giving of 18 opportunities, the respondent Sharif did not even appear before the said authority and adduce any evidence is support of his claim of the said allotment being regular and valid and since he was admittedly a minor of 11 years of age at the time of allotment and had also share in the agricultural land belonging to his father, since in the name of his grand- father about 440 big has of land was already recorded in the revenue record, out of which his father had share of 88 big has of land, therefore, the respondent- Sharif (the present petitioner) could not be said to be a landless person and since the allotment under the 1970 Rules was obtained by fraud and misrepresentation of facts, therefore, the said allotment was cancelled. The first appeal filed under Section 75 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 by the petitioner Sharif also came to be dismissed by the learned Revenue Appellate Authority vide order dated 20.9.1988 while dismissing 4 other similar appeals of other persons also, one of them being Appeal No. 562/1986, Ahsan S/o Mithu Khan v. State . The second appeal filed under Section 76 of the Act also came to be dismissed by the learned Board of Revenue vide impugned order Annexure-3 dated 25.4.1989 whereby appeal filed by the present petitioner Sharif S/o Mallar and another appeal filed by Ahsan S/o Mithu Khan came to be dismissed by the learned Board of Revenue by observing as under:

"6- nksuksa vihyk.V~l vkaoVu ds le; ukckfyx Fks bl laca/k esa iVokjh gYdk us O;fDrxr :i ls ns[kdj 'kiFkiw.kZ viuk c;ku fn;k gSA rFkk vihyk.V~l dh vk;q crkbZ gS ftlds vuqlkj vkoaVu ds le; os ukckfyx FksA bl laca/k esa ;g cgqr egRoiw.kZ ckr gS fd nksuksa vihyk.V~l us vius c;kuksa esa viuh dksbZ tUe frfFk ekg rFkk o"kZ vkfn ugha crk;k gS dsoy xksyeky vius dks ckfyx gksuk gh dgk gS tks fcuk fdlh vU; lgk;d lk{; ds fo'oluh; ugha gSA bruk gh ugha] vihyk.V~l us vius ckfyx gksus ds rF; dh iqf"V esa vius Lo;a ds ekrk firk vFkok fdlh vU; fj'rsnkj dh Hkh lk{; ugha djkbZ vkSj uk gh dksbZ Ldwy lfVZfQdsV] jk'ku dkMZ vFkok oksVj fyLV vkfn dh izfrfyfi izLrqr dh xbZ gS ftlls muds rdZ dks cy feyrk gksA blfy, nksuksa v/khuLFk U;k;ky;ksa us bl fcUnq ij foLr'r foospu dj QkbfMaXl nh gSa muls eSa lger gwaA bl izdkj vihyk.V~l] vkoaVu ds le;] ukckfyx gksus ls Hkw&vkoaVu ds ik= ugha FksA pawfd vihyk.V~l dks fd, x, vkoaVu dks fujLr djus gsrq dsoy ;gh fcUnq i;kZIr gS vr% eSa fo}ku vfHkHkk"kdx.k }kjk dh xbZ cgl ds vU; fcUnq ij foospu djuk mfpr ugha le>rkA

7- fu"d"kZr% nksuksa vihy vihyk.V~l lkjghu gksus ds dkj.k fujLr dh tkrh gSa rFkk jktLo vihy vf/kdkjh tks/kiqj o vfrfjDr ftyk/kh'k ckM+esj ds iz'uxr vkns'kksa dks ;Fkkor~ j[ks tkrs gSaA

gqDe [kqys U;k;ky; esa lquk;k x;kA"

3. Being aggrieved all these concurrent orders against him, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition before this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of India, which was filed on 11.10.2011.

4. Mr. jitendra Chopra, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even assuming for argument sake that the petitioner was a minor at the time of allotment of agricultural land in question, since as per Muslim personal law, he was not entitled to get any share in his father's property during father's life time at the