ORDER :

1. The instant writ petition has been preferred under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers:-

“It is, therefore, that the writ petition of the petitioner may kindly be allowed by quashing and setting aside the impugned order as Annexure-1, 2 and 3.”

2. Brief facts of the case are that:-

The Pong Dam oustees land situated in Chak 5 F.D.M.B. Tehsil-Suratgarh, Square No.98/340 total 25 Bighas was allotted to father of the petitioner on 24.12.1966 (hereinafter referred to as “the land in question”). The possession of the land in question was also allotted to him. However, the allotment of land in question was never cancelled by the competent authority but this land was recorded as the Government Land in the revenue record.

3. The aforesaid land in question was not in surplus for allotment. Despite that, the allotting authority, Suratgarh, allotted the said land in favour of Smt. Amrati Devi on 29.02.2016 without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

4. In this regard, the appeal was filed against the order dated 29.02.2016 by one Harpal Singh, who claimed himself as the purchaser of the land in question from the father of the petitioner herein. It is also pertinent to mention here, that, father of the petitioner had expired in the year 2012 and during his lifetime, no claim whatsoever was made by one Harpal Singh on the land in question. The petitioner was also not aware about the allotment order (Annexure-1) dated 29.02.2016. The appeal of Harpal Singh was dismissed vide order dated 05.05.2016, on the ground that he was a trespasser on the said land. Against the judgment/order dated 05.05.2016, Harpal Singh further preferred the second appeal before the Board of Revenue, Ajmer.

5. During pendency of the appeal, the petitioner filed an application for impleading him as the appellant No.2 in the array of the party appellants.

6. After hearing both the parties, the leaned Board of Revenue, Ajmer, dismissed the appeal on the ground that the original allottee has not preferred any appeal and secondly, there is a breach of allotment rules.

7. Being aggrieved of the impugned orders and the judgment dated 29.02.2016, 05.05.2016 and 28.02.2020, the petitioner prefers the instant writ petition.

8. Learned counsel Mr. N.L. Joshi, representing the petitioner submitted that:-

(a) Before allotting the land to the respondent No.2, the allotting authority neither cancelled the allotment made in favour of the father of the petitioner, nor did he gave any notice to the legal representatives of one Bangali Ram, as he expired in the year 2012.

(b) The impugned order Annexure-1 dated 29.02.2016 has been passed against the dead persons which is void and suffers from nullity in the eyes of law.

(c) The allotting authority has arbitrarily allotted the land in question in favour of the respondent No.2 Smt. Amrati Devi because, firstly, the land was not available for allotment and secondly, complete allotment proceedings were done through the power of attorney. The allottee Smt. Amrati Devi, never appeared before the allotting authority.

(d) Due to wrong allotment and irregularity, the allotting authority was trapped by the Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB).

(e) The subsequent allotment can only be made only on those lands, which are undisputed and in this writ petition, the said land in question does not comes in the category of ‘undisputed land’.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, thus, urges, that the writ petition may be allowed and the impugned orders and the judgment dated 29.02.2016, 05.05.2016 and 28.02.2020, be quashed and set aside qua the petitioner.

9. Per contra, learned counsel representing the private respondent No.2, opposed the submissions advanced by the petitioner’s counsel and submitted that:-

(a) The writ petition is not maintainable on the face of the record, because the petitioner was not a party in the matter filed before the Learned Allotment Authority, Suratgarh and the petitioner has not