ORDER :

(Nupur Bhati, J.)

This Civil Writ Petition has been preferred claiming for the following reliefs:-

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that:-

(i) by issuing a writ, order or direction the orders dated 28.02.2021 (Annexure-1), dated 15.06.2002 (Annexure-2) and dated 16.07.2012 (Annexure-3) be quashed as void and illegal;

(ii) Any other appropriate order or direction which this Hon'ble Court considers just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.

(iii) Cost of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioner."

2. Brief facts of the case as placed before this Court by learned counsel for the petitioner are that the petitioner submitted an application for special allotment under Rule 13A of the Rajasthan Colonisation (Allotment and Sale of Government Land in the Indira Gandhi Canal Colony Area) Rules, 1975 before the Alloting Authority and Assistant Colonisation Commissioner, Kolayat for allotment of Murabba No 113/54 of Chak 1 C.M. on 14.09.1999, which was dismissed vide order dated 28.03.2000 on the grounds of absence of evidence, non-prosecution and non deposition of 35% amount. And that the said land was allotted to respondent no.4 vide order dated 28.02.2001. Both the aforementioned order-sheets are placed at Annex-1.

2.1 That the petitioner preferred an appeal against the said order, before the learned Additional Colonisation Commissioner and Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner, which was also dismissed vide order dated 15.06.2002 (at Annex-2) and the allotment made in favour of the respondent no.4 was upheld on the ground that the application so preferred by him after the aforementioned application preferred by the petitioner was rejected.

2.2 That the petitioner preferred a revision against the order dated 15.06.2002 before the learned Board of Revenue, Ajmer which was also dismissed vide order dated 16.07.2012 (at Annex- 3).

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was the first in the priority for allotment of the land in question, as per Rule 7 of the Rules of 1975, and that the petitioner's application was wrongly rejected on the grounds that he is not interested in getting the allotment of the land in question, as he did not deposit the 35% amount as required, nor did he present himself before the concerned Court, but that in fact he was not duly served notice and therefore such grounds for the cancellation of his application are unsustainable, and as he was not afforded an opportunity of hearing, and that therefore, the impugned orders ought to be quashed and set aside.

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and submits that the impugned orders have been duly passed after taking into due consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case at hand, and that the impugned orders are speaking orders attributing reasons for dismissal of the petitioner's application for allotment.

5. Heard. Perused the record of the case.

6. This Court observes that the petitioner has challenged the impugned orders, being concurrent and consecutive orders, on the grounds that he was not afforded an opportunity of hearing as notices were not duly served upon him.

7. This Court further observes that vide the impugned order dated 28.02.2001, the Alloting Authority and Assistant Colonisation Commissioner, Kolayat directed the peti