TIWARI, M.—This is an appeal under Section 76 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act 1956 (in short `the Act') against the impugned order dated 31.5.01 of Revenue Appellate Authority Banswara.

2. The facts, in brief, are that the disputed land bearing khasra No. 236 measuring 5 bighas was allotted to the appellant on 29.3.1973 after which khatedari rights were conferred on the appellant in the year 1989. Thereafter on 14.10.1996 in application was moved before Additional Collector Banswara for cancellation of the above allotment under rule 14(4) of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Land For Agricultural Purposes) Rules 1970 (in short `the Rules of 1970') which was accepted and the allotment was cancelled by Additional Collector vide his judgment dated 30.9.1997 which was challenged in appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority Banswara who by his judgment dated 31.5.01 dismissed the appeal and upheld the order dated 30.9.1997 of Additional Collector. Hence the second appeal.

3. I have heard the learned counsels of rival parties.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the disputed land was allotted on 29.3.1973 and after conferment of khatedari rights on the appellant the allotment was cancelled by Additional Collector on 30.9.1997 after 24 years of the allotment. The ground or cancellation of the allotment was alleged possession of the opposite party on the disputed land. It is argued that this finding of the lower courts in erroneous as after allotment possession of the allotted land was formally handed over by the State Government to the allottee-appellant who had also acquired khatedari right in the land. After acquisition of khatedari right, the allotment cannot be cancelled 1993 RRD 596 and 552 and 1995 (2) RBJ 780 (High Court) were cited in support of this contention. It was also argued that the State Government was not made party in any of the cases before both the lowers courts whereas according to 1980 RRD 340 State is a necessary party in matter of dispute related to allotment of land. It was also contended that allotment order can only be cancelled when it is procured through fraud or misrepresentation. As such the impugned orders of both the lower courts are erroneous and illegal. It was further contended that in a regular suit filed under section 188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 the trial Court has issued permanent injunction against the respondent. Even then the lower Courts have illegally cancelled the allotment in a summary manner.

5. Countering the arguments of the appellant, the learned counsel for the respondent contended that the respondent is only a complainant and the allotment was cancelled by the State Government through Additional Collector. The appellant is not a landless person so he falsely presented himself as a landless person before the Allotting Authority. This amounts to misrepresentation. Citing 1990 RRD 465 and 2001 RRT 77 it was argued that the allotment procured through fraud can be cancelled at any stage. There is report of the site inspection enclosed in the file which clearly states that the appellant is not in possession of the disputed land which is in possession of the respondent. As such there is nothing illegal in the impugned order of both the lower courts.

6. I have pondered over the arguments of learned counsels for the rival parties, perused the impugned orders of both the lower courts and gone through the record available in the file.

7. It is apparent from perusal of the impugned orders of Additional Collector Banswara that the allotment of the land made on 29.3.1973 was cancelled on 20.9.1997 after lapse of almost 24 years. It is pertinent to mention here that the appellant had acquired khatedari rights in the year 1989. It has not been established by the courts below that the disputed land was got allotted in favour of the appellant through fraud or misrepresentation or there has been any breach of the conditions of allotment- the conditions ne