1. - Heard learned counsel for the appellant.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 30/10/2007 whereby the writ petition of the appellant challenging the judgment of the Board of Revenue dated 11/10/2000, Revenue Appellate Authority dated 26/7/2000 and the Sub Divisional Officer dated 16/12/1999 was dismissed. All the aforementioned three courts below concurrently decided against the appellant writ petitioner that allotment of land of Khasra No. 686 measuring 22 bigha 10 biswa to him by the SDO vide DBSAW No. 1046/08. his order dated 5/1/1972 was contrary to the provisions of Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Land for Agricultural Purposes) Rules, 1970 (in short, the "Rules of 1970") because land was situated within the area of Municipal Board and that petitioner being an employee of the Municipal Board Pushkar was not a bonafide agriculturist. The writ petition filed there against by the appellant was dismissed by the learned Single Judge upholding the orders passed by the aforesaid three courts.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the learned courts below have misread and misinterpreted the provisions of Rules of 1970 inasmuch as, it has wrongly been held by the courts below that the appellant was not a landless agriculturist and that the land was situated within the municipal limits. It was submitted that provisions of Rule 4(v)(d) of the Rules of 1970 which provides that lands situated in the municipal limits would not be available for allotment, have wrongly been applied because sub-clause (c) of clause (v) of Rule 4 of the Rules of 1970 provides that the lands within the limit of one mile from the boundary of the municipal town with the population of one lac and above but below two lacs would be available for allotment. It was argued that the courts below have wrongly held the appellant to be a Government servant because proviso (a) to Rule 2(iii-B) which defines "landless agriculturist" excludes only an employee of the Government and appellant was employee of the Municipal Board and not a Government employee. Learned counsel further argued that the allotment in the present case was made in the year 1972 and it could not be cancelled at such belated stage as was done by the SDO vide its order dated 16/12/1999. Referring to Rule 14 of the Rules of 1970, learned counsel argued that once the khatedari rights are conferred on the allottee upon expiry of 10 years as per sub-rule (1) thereof, it could not be cancelled. Learned counsel in this connection relied on the judgment of Supreme Court in Brij Lal v. Board of Revenue and others, AIR 1994 SC 1128 and this Court in Jas Raj v. Board of Revenue & Ors., RLR 1999(2) 687 .

4. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced by the parties and perused the impugned-orders and also the case law cited.

5. The contention that an employee of the Municipal Board cannot be considered to be a Government servant cannot be accepted because the definition of 'landless agriculturist' as given in Rule 2(iii-B) provides that landless agriculturist means a resident of Rajasthan who is either a bonafide agriculturist or an agricultural labourer, and is cultivating or is likely to cultivate land personally, and whose main source of livelihood is agriculture or any occupation which is subsidiary or subservient to agriculture. Proviso thereof provides that an employee of Government, or of a commercial or industrial establishment or concern, his wife and children dependant on him shall not be considered to be landless agriculturist. Besides the fact that appellant being an employee of the Municipal Board was not a bonafide agriculturist and was not cultivating or was not likely to cultivate the land personally and his main source of livelihood was not agriculture, clause (a) of the proviso, clarifies it further by saying that an employee of Government, or of a commercial or industrial establishment or con