1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2709/2008 (Harji Giri Vs. B.O.R. & Ors.) Date of order : 30.03.2009 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS Mr. S.P. Sharma, for the petitioner. Mr. Vishal Jangi, for respondent No.2. Mr. Hemant Choudhary, Govt. Counsel for State. In this case, the petitioner is challenging the validity of the judgment dated 30.1.1989 passed by Asstt. Collector, Rawatsar in Revenue Suit No.289/1996 and the order 5.5.2000 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority in appeal, so also, the order dated 7.3.2008 passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer whereby all the Courts below gave concurrent finding that there is no evidence on record to show that the petitioner was in possession of the land in question. As per the petitioner, he was allotted land in the year 1968 measuring 40 bighas but for the first time he filed suit in the year 1996 before the Assistant Collector, Rawatsar and the Assistant Collector, Rawatsar while framing four issues including the issue of possession dismissed the suit 2 filed by the petitioner on the ground that there is no evidence to show that the petitioner was in possession of the land. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that as per Rule 14 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Land for Agricultural Purposes) Rules, 1970 at the time of allotment the petitioner was given possession of the land. Likewise, it is submitted that Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in case of Mangla Son of Hema Vs. State of Raj. & Ors., reported in 2007 (2) CDR 974 (Raj.) (DB) has held that allotment cannot be cancelled after expiry of 21 years. In my opinion, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to applicability of Rule 14 (4) of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Land for Agricultural Purposes) Rules, 1970 will not apply in this case, so also the facts of the judgments (supra) citied by learned counsel for the petitioner are altogether different from the facts and controversy involved in this case. Therefore, both the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner are not acceptable. The Assistant Collector, Rawatsar District Hanumangarh gave its finding after taking into consideration entire evidence and framing issues that the petitioner was not in possession of the said land 3 and subsequently the said land was allotted to other persons. The said finding given by Assistant Collector, Rawatsar vide judgment dated 30.1.1989 was further upheld by Revenue Appellate Authority, Hanumangarh as well as by Board of Revenue vide judgment dated 5.5.2000 and 7.3.2008 respectively. In my opinion, the concurrent finding of fact with regard to the petitioner's possession over the land in question does not require any interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. (GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS), J. arun