The Tehsildar has the jurisdiction to make the allotment of land on the recommendation of the Land Allotment Committee and that the application for cancellation of allotment must be filed within a reasonable period.

1. - This writ petition has been filed by petitioner-Radha Kishan challenging the order dated 6.9.2000 passed by District Collector, Tonk, order dated 27.2.2001 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority and the judgement dated 23.6.2003 passed by the Board of Revenue.

2. Facts of the case briefly stated are that Tehsildar recommended the case of the petitioner for allotment of land in khasra no. 1872 (old khasra no. 1721) measuring 7 bighas situated in village Bagdi Tehsil Peeplu, District Tonk under Rule 20 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Agriculture Land) Rules, 1970 (for short-'the Allotment Rules of 1970') by order dated 5.9.1973 by way of regularisation. Considering the petitioner as land less person, the allotment of the land was made in his favour by order dated 15.11.1975 on recommendation of the Allotment Committee. The respondent no.2 filed an application under Rule 14(4) of Rules of 1970 on 22.9.1999 with the prayer that the order of allotment by way of regularisation dated 15.11.1975 be cancelled. The District Collector by order dated 6.9.2000 allowed the application and cancelled the allotment. The petitioner unsuccessfully filed appeals before the Revenue Appellate Authority and the Board of Revenue, both of which dismissed the appeals.

3. Shri Praveen Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the courts below have in the impugned orders wrongly held that Tehsildar has no jurisdiction to regularise the land in dispute. In fact, the Tehsildar on 5.9.1973 recommended the case of the petitioner for regularisation and file was submitted to the SDO, Tonk. Thereafter, the case of the petitioner was placed before the Land Allotment Committee and the order of regularisation dated 15.11.1975 in the name of petitioner was issued. As per Rule 13 and 20 of the Allotment Rules of 1970 only consultation of the Allotment Committee was required. Bare perusal of the regularisation order dated 15.11.1975 would show that it was passed with consultation of Land Allotment Committee and there is no requirement under the Rules that order of regularisation should be issued by the SDO himself and further that Tehsildar had no jurisdiction to pass the order. The application for cancellation of allotment has been moved 24 years after the allotment by respondent no.2. It is settled law that even under Rule 14(4), the khatedari rights, when conferred after ten years of allotment, cannot be cancelled. Reliance in this connection is placed to the division bench judgement of this Court in Pat Ram & Ors. v. State & Ors., 1995 DNJ (Raj.) 592.

4. Shri Praveen Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the courts below failed to consider that the land in dispute was in possession of the petitioner since Svt. 2026. It is argued that Supreme Court in various matters have held that even if the allotment was made in law, still the person cannot be dispossessed from the land after a very long time. In the present case, the application has been filed after 24 years of the allotment. Reliance in this connection is placed on the judgement of Supreme Court in Brij Lal v. Board of Revenue & Ors., AIR 1994 Supreme Court 1128.

5. Shri Praveen Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that the allotment has been cancelled on the premise that land in dispute was recorded as 'Nadi' (pond), whereas actually their exist no such 'Nadi' and that the Tehsildar has inspected the site and that he has made observation in the report dated 5.9.1973 (Annexure-1) that on ground there does not exist any 'Nadi' or pond. It is argued that even the land of 'Nadi' can be allotted after changing its nature. In the present case, the nature of land was changed and then it was allotted to petitioner. Reliance in this connection is placed on the judgement of this Court in Ramdayal Kushwaha & Ors. v. State & Ors., 2013 (2) RRT 778.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that the allotment of the land in the pre