1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.15995/2010 Ram Lal & Ors. vs. Board of Revenue & Ors. Date of order : 6/12/2010. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Manoj Bhardwaj for the petitioner. ****** Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the fact that there is no person by the name of Prabhu Lal S/o Jugal, has been held not proved both by the Revenue Appellate Authority and the Revenue Board. This Court in number of decisions has taken the view that once the khatedari rights are conferred upon allottee under Rule 14 of the Allotment of Land for Agricultural Purposes Rules, 1970, such allotment cannot be cancelled after delay. In the present case, application seeking cancellation of allotment made on 6.12.1975 was submitted by Tehsildar 25 years thereafter in the year 2001. This was on the complaint of the petitioner that the respondent no.3 was not cultivating the land wherein the report of the Tamil Kunanda that there was no person by the name of Prabhu S/o Jugal, B/c. Harijan. There was however one person by the name of Prabhu S/o Sua. Although, the District Collector cancelled the allotment on the basis of such report but the Revenue Appellate Authority and the Board of Revenue have taken the consistent 2 view that there was no evidence either documentary or oral to show that father's name of Prabhu is not Jugal and that he is not a Harijan. In fact, the Board of Revenue has referred to the averments made by the petitioners themselves in their application seeking condonation of delay filed along with the appeal wherein they have admitted the fact that it was respondent no.3 Prabhu Lal whom the land was alloted. The Board of Revenue has referred number of decisions of this Court and the Board itself to say that after so much of delay, the allotment cannot be cancelled. It is not in dispute that the land in the present case soon after its allotment was treated in the name of respondent no.3 Prabhu S/o Jugal, B/c Harijan and that the allotment was cancelled merely because the service of notice was not effected. Apparently, on mere report of service processor, the allotment could not have been so lightly cancelled particularly when more than 25 years have elapsed in between. I neither find any infirmity in the impugned orders, nor any merit in this writ petition. The writ petition is therefore dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. RS/-