[1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4724/2000 NIJAR KHAN & ORS. Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE & ORS. DATE: 29.10.2007. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. RATHORE Mr. Manish Choudhary for the petitioner. Mr. N.A. Naqvi with Mr. Nawab Ali Rathore for the respondents. **** Brief facts of the case are that the land in dispute is custodian land as the father of the petitioners was in possession of the aforesaid land and applied for grant of 'Patta' of the aforesaid land after depositing the cost of the land. The Tehsildar cum Managing Officer, Mundawar alloted the aforesaid land to the father of the petitioners on depositing the cost and interest as per rules and 'Patta' was granted to him on 15.02.93. Aggrieved and dissatisfied with this allotment order, the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 filed an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority cum Settlement Officer, Alwar and the Revenue Appellate Authority vide its order dated 12.03.96 allowed the appeal filed by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and quashed and set-aside [2] the order dated 08.02.93 passed by the Collector and the Patta dated 15.02.93. Against the aforesaid order dated 12.03.96 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Board of Revenue, Ajmer and the same was dismissed at admission stage vide order dated 27.03.96. The petitioners have also preferred a review petition against the said order dated 27.03.96 and that too was dismissed by the Board of Revenue vide order dated 22.07.99. Hence, aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 12.03.96 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, order dated 27.03.96 passed by the Board of Revenue in the appeal and the order dated 22.07.99 passed by the Board of Revenue in review petition, the petitioners have preferred the instant writ petition. It is not disputed that the petitioners and their father were having possession over the disputed land since long and after verifying the physical possession and as per the statements of the neighbours of the disputed land, Tehsildar, Mundwar submitted its report and on the basis of this report, the Tehsildar cum Managing Officer, Mundawar has rightly issued a 'Patta' in favour of the father of the petitioners which cannot be cancelled. [3] It is also contended that the provisions of the Land Revenue (Permanent Allotment of Evacuee Agriculture Land) Rules, 1963 (for short 'the Rules of 1963'), provides for grant of 'Patta' to the local tenant of the land and since the father of the petitioners was local tenant of the land, therefore, 'Patta' was rightly granted to him. The Revenue Appellate Authority and the Board of Revenue have not properly considered the provisions of the Rules of 1963, which were not applicable in the present matter and the appeal filed before the Revenue Appellate Authority against the order of allotment, as per Rule 30 of the Revenue Court Manual Part-II and Section 79 of the Land Revenue Act, 1956, was not maintainable. This aspect has also not been examined by the Revenue Appellate Authority and the Board of Revenue and the findings given by the Revenue Appellate Authority as well as the Board of Revenue are also contrary to the facts of the case. I have considered the rival submissions of the respective parties and carefully gone through the order impugned dated 12.03.96 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, orders dated 27.03.96 and 22.07.99 passed by the Board of Revenue in appeal and review petition respectively as well as the relevant provisions of law. [4] It is not disputed that concurrent findings are given by all the Courts below against the petitioners. The Revenue Appellate Authority has considered the provisions of the Act of 1954 as well as the provisions of allotment Rules, 1963. The Revenue Appellate Authority as well as the Board of Revenue has also considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners with regard to the Revenue Court Manual and observed that the provisions which have been referred by the petitioners are not applicable and having examined each and every aspect, the Revenue Appellate Authority has allowed the appeal filed by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 vide order dated 12.03.96 and the same has been upheld by the Board of Revenue in appeal as well as in review petition. Thus, I find no illegality or error apparent on the face of the record to interfere with the impugned order dated 12.03.96 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority as well as the orders dated 27.03.96 and 22.07.99 passed by the Board of Revenue in appeal and review petition respectively. Consequently, the writ petition fails being devoid of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. (K.S. RATHORE),J. /KKC/