(2). The matter in dispute, parties in the appeals and the facts of the appels are identical. Therefore, these appeals are being disposed of by this single judgment, copy which may be placed in each file.

(3). Briefly, the facts of these cases as per the appeals are that lands of khasra No. 431 area 0.35 hectare and khasra No. 431 area 0.40 hectare were the khatedari lands of Ladi Ji Sahab Thikana Kachanavad and after the death of Ladi Ji Sahab Kachanavda it came in the name of one Shri Amar Singh. It is being claimed by the appellant that on this land appellants father late Shri Ghasi was recorded as sub-tenant and during the lifetime of his father this land was under cultivation and after the death of his father he and his brothers have been cultivating this land. As per the operation of Rajasthan Tenancy Act the appellant automatically became tenant of this land but by mistake khatedari rights were not conferred.—Proceedings under the Ceiling Act against Amar Singh were initiated and in the process the land which was in possession of the appellant was surrendered by the assessee. That the assessee could not surrender this land because this land had already been in possession of the appellant and by operation of law the appellant could have been declared as khatedar by the Government but this was also not done and later on this land was allotted to the respondent No. 1 by allotment order dated 2.2.93 but the knowledge of this fact came to the appellant on 11.7.99 and then immediately certified copies were taken and action for getting the allotments cancelled were taken under section 17(4) but learned Addl. Collector, Kota rejected the request of the appellant by his order dated 22.4.2000. Aggrieved against this order, these appeals are before this court.

(4). Arguing in support of the appeals, the contention of the learned advocate of the appellant is that the decision of the learned Addl. Collector is against the facts and law and it deserves to be set aside. He also argued that it is necessary that before any allotment is made a proclamation order has to be issued and it has been mentioned by learned Addl. Collector that the appellant could not prove that a negative cannot be proved we could have only proved in case any such proclamation was made. That the Advisory Committee was expected to ensure that the allotments were as per law and only the Addl. D.D.O. and Tehsildar, Administrator Gram Panchayat recommended the allotment and this allotment is vitiated. The learned Addl. Collector not only rejected my request but he also ordered that possession should be given to the allottee. Such an order is beyond jurisdiction. He also argued that only by acquisition it cannot be presumed that the land which was allotted is free from encumbrances. The land has been in our possession since svt. 2007 and we have already gone into a declaratory suit for getting this land declared as our khatedari land. We were not party to either acquisition proceedings. Hence, we are a third party and we cannot be deprived of our rights for claiming a declaration. State can consider for allotting another lands to the allottees if the State has received money in lieu of allotment. We are also poor people like the allottees and our priority should also be considered. Our request for condonation of delay has already been considered by learned Addl. Collector, hence our request for cancellation of the allotment on which we have been in possession should be considered. I am already a defacto khatedar by operation of law and I am not a khatedar in the jamabandi which is a record of right but for that purpose I have already prayed for declaration in the competent court and I am hopeful of getting declaration in my favour, hence the allotment orders may kindly