IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that allotments obtained by misrepresentation or fraud can be cancelled without limitation, and such allotments do not confer any title over the property.

ORDER :

1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayer:-

“it is, therefore, prayed that by an appropriate writ, order or direction:-

a) the orders dated 11.10.2011 passed by Board of Revenue in appeal/LR/1423/2006/ Jaipur be quashed and set aside.

b) the order dated 28.12.2005 passed by Revenue Appellate Authority, Jaipur in appeal No. 43/2001 in so far as it relates to cancellation of allotment of land of Khasra No. 110/3301 measuring 7 bighas 17 biswas be set aside and quashed.

c) the order dated 30.01.2001 passed by Additional Collector (II) Jaipur in case No. Justice Beri Commission No. 14/04 application 26/94 be quashed and set aside.

Such other order as your Lordship deems proper may also be passed in favour of the petitioner.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that father of the petitioners was a “landless person”, hence, considering the provisions contained under the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act (Allotment of Land for Agriculture purposes) Rules, 1957, the allotment of land bearing Khasra No. 1098/2 measuring, 7 Bigha and land bearing Khasra No. 110/3301 measuring, 7 Bigha and 17 Biswa was made in his favour, way back in the year 1964 and 1961 respectively. Counsel submits that after a lapse of 40 years, the above allotments were cancelled by the Court of Additional Collector- II, Jaipur vide order dated 30.01.2001 on the basis of recommendations made by the “Beri Commission” constituted by the State Government. Counsel submits that no notice was given by the Commission to the petitioners and an ex parte recommendations were made for cancellation of the allotment. Counsel submits that against the impugned order dated 30.01.2001, the petitioners submitted an appeal before the Court of Revenue Appellate Authority, Jaipur (for short, ‘RAA’) wherein an order was passed and the allotment dated 12.06.1964 with regard to the land bearing Khasra No. 1098/2 measuring 7 Bigha was restored and rest of the order of cancellation was retained as it is vide impugned order dated 28.12.2005. Counsel submits that aggrieved and dissatisfied by this order, the petitioners submitted an appeal under Section 76 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (for short, ‘the Act of 1956’) before the Board of Revenue (for short, ‘the Board’) and the Board has gone a step ahead and suo motu has cancelled the allotment which was made in favour of the petitioners’ father with regard to land bearing Khasra Nos. 1098/2 measuring 7 Biswa vide order dated 11.10.2011. Counsel submits that the aforesaid order passed by the Board was foreign to the procedure because no appeal was submitted by the State against the judgment dated 28.12.2005 passed by the RAA. Counsel further submits that allotment made in favour of father of the petitioners cannot be cancelled after a lapse of more than four decades. Counsel further submits that once the petitioners got the khatedari rights, the same cannot be cancelled without following the due process of law as contained under Rule 44 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of land for Agriculture purposes) Rules of 1970. Counsel further submits that the allotment of the land in question was made in favour of the petitioners as per the Rules of 1956, hence the allotment of the land to the petitioners cannot be cancelled by the respondents in exercise of power contained under Rule 44 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of land for Agriculture purposes), Rules 1957 (for short, ‘the Rules of 1957’). In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Pat Ram and Ors. Vs. The State of Rajasthan and Ors. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 948/1986 and the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Anandi Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors., reported in 1996 RRD 170. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted.

3. Per contra, counsel for the respondents opposed the