1. An application under Rule 14(4) of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of land for Agricultural Purposes) Rules, 1970 (for short, 1970 Rules) was decided by Additional Collector, Tonk in favour of the appellant and the allotment of land made to respondent Ramesh Singh was cancelled. Ramesh Singh, then preferred an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority which was allowed. The appellant preferred 2nd appeal under Section 76 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act. Learned Board of Revenue vide order dated April 18, 1996 dismissed the appeal in limine holding that it was not maintainable. The order of Revenue Board was assailed by the appellant by filing writ petition before the learned Single Judge but writ petition was also dismissed. Hence this appeal.

2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. In Narain and Anr. v. Board of Revenue and Anr. 2000 DNJ (Raj.) 317 , Division Bench of this Court held that complainant in the matter of Rule 14(4) of 1970 Rules is not merely an informant but he has to establish facts alleged in the application. The complainant has to establish that he was in possession of land before the allotment made to respondent. In such a situation, complainant has locus standi to file the 2nd appeal.

4. In the instant matter, it was canvassed on behalf of appellant that prior to allotment of land to respondent, he was in possession over the land in question. Rule 14 (4) of 1970 Rules provides that the Collector shall have the power to cancel an allotment made by a Sub-Divisional Officer or Tehsildar either suo-motu or on the application of any person in case the allotment has been secured through fraud or, misrepresentation or has been made against rules or in case the allottee has committed breach of any of the conditions of allotment provided that no such order to the prejudice of any person shall be passed without giving such person an opportunity of being heard. The appellant in the instant matter has shown sufficient interest to sustain his locus to carry on the lis. He had come up with a case in application that he was in possession of the land in question prior to allotment made in favour of respondent Ramesh Singh. Whether he is able to sustain such claim, can only be decided after the appellant is heard and has an opportunity to establish his claim. The Board of Revenue as well as the learned Single Judge have failed to notice this aspect of the matter notwithstanding that such contention was raised on behalf of the appellant.

5. For these reasons, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgments of learned Single Judge as well as the Board of Revenue. We remit the matter of Board of Revenue for fresh decision on merits. The parties are directed to appear before the Board of Revenue on April 9, 2008. There shall be no order as to costs.Appeal allowed.

*******