"(i) An appropriate writ or direction, in the nature of certiorari may be issued, quashing the orders dated 3.9.1985 (Annex.9) passed by the Board of Revenue and 2.8.96 (Annex.12) passed by Collector (Administration), Bikaner, 30.1.2002 (Annex.15) passed by Revenue Appellate Authority and 13.1.2012 (Annex.16) passed by the Board of Revenue.

(ii) An appropriate writ or direction may be issued allowing the application filed by the petitioner under Rule 14(4) of the Rules of 1970 and allotment made order dated 3.1.1976 (Ann.4) made in favour of the petitioner may kindly be restored.

(iii) An appropriate, writ direction on order, the allotment order dated 10.7.66 (Ann.1) in favour of Keshu Ram, husband and father of respondents No.6 & 7 may kindly be quashed and set aside.

(iv) cost of this writ petition may kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioner."

2. As per facts of the case, an allotment was made in favour of one late Keshu Ram Purohit in khasra No.447 in village Bhadla Tehsil Nokha on 10.7.1966 and, in pursuance of the allotment, mutation was entered in his name on 23.11.1966 and eh was enjoying possession of the said land as per allotment; but, the said allotment was cancelled by he S.D.O. (South), Bikaner without notice and allotted the land to the petitioner Lachha Ram, Moti Ram and Om Das vide order dated 3.1.1976. The order passed by the S.D.O. (South), Bikaner dated 3.1.1976 was challenged before the District Collector, Bikaner by Smt. Surt, Smt. Santosh and Devilal, wife, daughter and son of late Keshu Ram Purohit being legal heirs of late Keshu Ram Purohit because Keshu Ram Purohit died. The District Collector dismissed the application of the respondents vide order dated 6.8.1979. Against the order of the District Collector, Bikaner an appeal was preferred before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner and learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner allowed the appeal vide judgment dated 10.6.1980 passed in Appeal No.11/1980. The petitioner who was subsequent allottee and was party in the appeal challenged the order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority before the Board of Revenue, Ajmer by way of filing appeal No.49/80. The Board of Revenue dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated 3.9.1985, in which, following order was passed :

"6. The first issue is whether an appeal against the order of the Collector would lie before the Revenue Appellate Authority. As laid down in the various authorities of the Board, an appeal can be preferred only by an aggrieved person the question whether the person preferring an appeal is an aggrieved person or not would depend on the facts of the case. In this particular case the and was duly allotted to Kesu Ram and continued to be in his name for 10 years. There is nothing on record to show that the allotment was cancelled by due process of law. He therefore had a genuine grievance and has the right to prefer an appeal. There is, therefore, no force in the contention that the appeal was not maintainable before the Revenue Appellate Authority.

7. The ruling cited by the learned counsel is not applicable to this case because the facts of the case are absolutely different.

8. It is an admitted position that this land was earlier allotted to Kesu Ram. There is nothing on record to show that the allotment made in his favour was cancelled by the competent authority after giving him due notice. As the only document available is a muta-tion canceling the allotment on which orders have been given by the Tehsildar, who had no jurisdiction to cancel the allotment. The Collector should have examined whether in view of this land can be treated as being vacant before subsequent allotment can be made.

9. In view of this the order of the Revenue Appellate Authority is upheld and the appeal is dismissed."

The judgment dated 3.9.1985 passed by the Board of Revenue in the appeal filed by the petitioner was not challenged