1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR -------------------------------------------------------- SPL. APPL. WRIT No. 443 of 2009 DIWAN CHAND V/S STATE & ORS. Mr. SUDHEER SHARMA, for the appellant / petitioner Mr. SL JAIN, for the respondent Date of Order : 15.5.2009 HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J. HON'BLE SHRI GOVIND MATHUR,J. ORDER ----- Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned order. Admittedly the land was originally allotted to one Dita Ram, as Pong-Dam-Oustee under the Rules of 1972, which allotment was cancelled on account of non-deposit of installments in time. Admittedly also, that order of cancellation was reviewed under Rule 8A of the Rules, which was introduced vide notification dated 22.4.82. In our view, the obvious consequence of such review/recalling of the order of cancellation results into restoration of allotment in favour of the original allottee. May be, that, by that time, the original allottee had died, then in that event, the right devolves on all legal representatives, and heirs of the original allottee. In such circumstances, in such proceedings, simply because the appellant claims to have been able to alone obtain 2 fresh allotment of the land in his favour, he is not entitled to any indulgence by this Court under Article 226 jurisdiction, which has rightly been declined by the learned Single Judge. It was argued by learned counsel for the appellant that the matter was earlier agitated by one Roop Lal, the present respondent No.7, and the matter was decided by the Assistant Collector, which order was upheld by the Revenue Appellate Authority, in such circumstances, it was not open to raise the controversy afresh. We have gone through that order, as is available on record, and find that those proceedings were initiated for correction of the allotment order, and making correction in the Jamabandi, and it was found that since the allotment has been made in the name of the present appellant, correction could not be made. It was also found that if the allotment is wrongly made, then it was required to be challenged by way of appeal. The present proceedings had been initiated thereafter, inasmuch as, the order of Revenue Appellate Authority is dated 12.7.2001, and the matter was agitated before the Collector again in 1991 itself, which application was dismissed by the learned Collector. However, the Board of Revenue found that undisputedly, the applicants are real brothers of the present appellant, and vide order dated 27.7.1985 fresh allotment was not made, rather the allotment already made 3 in 1973, which was cancelled vide order dated 5.2.1979, was revived by exercising powers under Rule 8A, which was subsequently added. It was also noticed that even in the allotment order, it is noticed, that the present appellant was found eligible for allotment of alternate land, obviously alternate land was to be given only because the land was allotted to his father in the year 1973, as such, mere omission to mention the names of other heirs of the original allottee Dita is clearly an error apparent on the face of record, and was corrected by the learned Board of Revenue. In our view, any interference in the impugned order of the learned Board of Revenue by this Court under Article 226, or by us in the present appeal, would result into bringing about, and occasioning rather substantial failure of justice to the heirs of the original allottee, and therefore, notwithstanding the hypertechnical arguments raised by the appellant, it is not a case, where interference is required to be made under Article 226, and the same has rightly been declined by the learned Single Judge. The appeal thus, has no force, and is, therefore, dismissed summarily. ( GOVIND MATHUR ),J. ( N P GUPTA ),J. /tarun/