Honble CHAUHAN, J. – In the instant petition, petitioner has challenged the impugned orders dated 22.5.82, 25.4.89 and 28.11.90 contained in Annex. 3, 5 and 7 respectively to the petition whereby the allotment of land to petitioner under the Rajasthan Colonisation (Allotment and Sale of Govt. Land in the Indira Gandhi Canal Colony Area) Rules,1975, hereinafter called ``Rules 1975, had been cance-lled and his revision and review had been rejected by the competent authorities.

(2). The factual gamut of the case reveal that petitioner applied for permanent allotment of land under the pre existing rules as he was holding the said land on temporary basis and twenty five bighas of land was allotted to him vide order dt. 30.7.74. At the time of allotment, petitioner was working as a primary school teacherand was in Govt. Service. Petitioner was issued a show cause notice dated 19.2.79 as to why the allotment be not cancelled as he was not eligible for allotment. Petitioner replied to the said show cause notice on 25.2.79 and it appears that a subsequent notice dt. 4.6.80 was served upon the petitioner for cancellation of said allotment under Rule 22 (3) of the Rules 1975. Petitioner filed the reply to the saidnotice and after completing the formalities, respondent No. 3 vide his order dated 22.5.82 contained in Annex. 3 to the petition cancelled the said allotment. Being aggrieved, petitioner filed a revision against the said order dt. 22.5.82, which was dismissed by respondent No. 2 vide order dt. 25.4.89 contained in Annex. 5 to the petition. Petitioner preferred the review petition before the Board of Revenue whichtoo came to be dismissed vide order dt. 28.11.90 (Annex. 7). Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, petitioner has challenged the said impugned orders by filing the instant petition.

(3). Heard S/Shri R.K. Singhal learned counsel for the petitioner and M.R. Singhvi learned counsel for the respondents.

(4). It has been submitted on behalf of petitioner that R. 4 (4) of the Rules 1975 provides that even if allotment has been made in contravention of the Rules 1975, the concerned authority can give a chance to retain the land with the family, if there is an adult son of such lease holder, who is otherwise eligible for allotment of land under these rules. Petitioner has not raised this issue earlier in memorandum ofAppeal or Revision. It is settled law that a party cannot take a new plea first time in the writ court, which requires investigation of facts.

(5). In Ratanlal Sharma vs. Managing Committee (1), the Apex Court has observed as under :

``All point not raised before the Tribunal or Administrative authority may not be allowed to raise for the first time in writ jurisdiction, more so when the interference in the writ jurisdiction which is equitable and discretionary is not of- course a must.

(6). The same view has been taken by the Apex Court in the cases of St. Arunachalam Pillai vs. Southern Roadways Ltd. and Anr. (2), A.M. Allison vs. Stateof Assam (3), Cantonment Board Ambala vs. Pyarelal (4), State of U.P. vs. Dr. Anupam Gupta (5), Bhanwarlal vs. T.K.A. Abdul Karim (6) and Rajeshwari Amma vs. Joseph (7). Whether the son of petition was eligible to be considered for allotment of the said land under Rule 4 (4) of the said Rules is a question which requires investigation of facts and, thus, he cannot be permitted to raise this issuefirst time in the writ petition.

(7). It has been canvassed by Shri Singhal that the finding arrived-at by respondent No. 3 that petitioner was not a bonafide agriculturist and his main source of income was not agriculture, is contrary to law and facts on record. It is further urged that petitioner has been in possession of the land in dispute for more than two decades and, thus, there can be no justification in uprooting him from the said land particularly in view of the fact that petitioner has retired from service and there has been no bar prior to 1982, amendment for allotting the land to the Govt