Honble BALIA, J.–This appeal is directed against the order of learned single Judge vide order dated 2.2.99. The matter is listed for cancellation of stay application. However, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties we have heard the appeal itself.

(2). The facts necessary for the present purposes are that allotment under the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotments of Land for Agricultural Purpose) Rules, 1970 [hereinafter called the Rules] has been made for the land in question in favour of one Roopa Ram respondent No.5 who is an Ex-army man. The present appellant Shanker Lal and Narain alongwith Sita Ram filed an application under Rule 14 (iv) of the Rule for cancellation of allotment made in favour of Roopa Ram to the Collector, Bhilwara. Actually on the ground that allotment made in favour of Roopa Ram is not proper and the applicants are in possession of the land prior to allotment made in favour of Roopa Ram and are entitled to be considered for regularisation as their possession is prior to consideration of application of Roopa Ram. This application was allowed by the Addl. Collector vide order dated 12.8.93 and the order of allotment was set aside. Against said order Roopa Ram preferred appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority Ajmer and impleaded State of Raj., Narain, Shanker Lal and Sita Ram as respondents. The Revenue Appellate Authority allowed the appeal of Roopa Ram on 28.10.96 and restored the allotment in favour of Rooma Ram. Aggrieved with that order Narain and Shanker Lal alone preferred second appeal before the Board of Revenue, Ajmer under Section 76 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act. An objection was raised on behalf of respondent Roopa Ram that the applicant has no right to prefer an appeal in proceedings under Rule 14 of the aforesaid rules. Upholding the preliminary objection the appeal of Narain and Shanker Lal was dismissed by the Board of Revenue on 23.9.97, against which they filed writ petition No. 2821/98 which has been dismissed by learned single Judge vide order under challenge in this appeal.

(3). Having heard the learned counsel for the parties we are of the opinion that this appeal as well as writ petition deserves to be allowed and the case be remanded to Board of Revenue for deciding the appeal of present appellants-petitioners on merit.

(4). The appeal of the appellants before the Board has not been dismissed on merits but by holding that appellants have no locus standi to file an appeal in respect of order passed under Rule 14 (4) of the Rules of 1970. Rule 14 which provides for condition of allotment under Sub Rule 4 provides as under:

``Rule 14 (1).............

Rule 14 (2).............

Rule 14 (3).............

Rule 14 (4) ``The Collector shall have the power to cancel any allotment made by a Sub-Divisional Officer 10 (or a Tehsildar under the rules repealed by rule 21 of the rules) either suo-moto or on the application of any person in case the allotment has been secured through fraud or, misrepresentation or has been made against rules or in case the allottee has committed breach of any of the conditions of allotment:

Provided that no such order to the prejudice of any person shall be passed without giving such person an opportunity of being heard.

(5). Perusal of the aforesaid rule shows that power has been conferred on the Collector to cancel any allotment made by a Sub-divisional Officer or Tehsildar where allotment has been secured through fraud or misrepresentation or has been made against rules or allottee has committed any breach of conditions of allotment. It further envisages that such power can be exercised by the Collector either suo moto or on a complaint of another person. This is to be discerned that the power which has been conferred is exercisable not merely suo moto on an information by anyone but it envisages that such power to cancel can be exercised on an application of another person in this regard. The very fact that statute envisages filing of an applicati

Click Here to Read the rest of this document