1. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7893/2010 State of Rajasthan Vs. Kishan Singh & Anr. Date of Order :: 20.8.2010 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr. Sandeep Bhandawat, Government Counsel. Mr. N.M. Lodha, for the respondent No.1 ... By this petition for writ, a challenge is given to order dated 10.6.2008 passed by the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer in Appeal/L.R./131/2004/Jalore (I.D.No.5917/2004) – State of Rajasthan Vs. Kishan Singh. In brief, the facts of the case are that as per the provisions of Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Land for Agricultural Purposes) Rules, 1970, a piece of land measuring 15 bighas was allotted to respondent No.1 in the year 1967. On 6.8.1999, the Patwari, Medha Uparla after inspecting the site, submitted a report to the Tehsildar that the allottee has not complied with the conditions for retaining the allotment. On basis of the report submitted by Patwari, the Tehsildar preferred an application before the Collector, Jalore to cancel the allotment made in favour of respondent No.1 by exercising powers under Rule 14 (4) of the Rules of 1970. The Collector, Jalore by order dated 04.11.2000 rejected the application submitted by the Tehsildar 2. and the Revenue Appellate Authority by its order dated 7.10.2004 maintained the order so passed. The Board of Revenue also affirmed the orders passed by the Collector and the Revenue Appellate Authority. While challenging the orders passed by the Collector, Revenue Appellate Authority and the Board of Revenue, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the courts below failed to appreciate that as per Rule 14(3) of the Rules of 1970, the respondent should have cultivated at least 50% of the allotted land within the first year of allotment but as a matter of fact he was not even having possession on the land when the Patwari made inspection of the site. The question now sought to be agitated, could have been examined much back in the year 1968 itself and not after a lapse of about 30 years from the date of allotment of land. The courts below too considered this aspect of the matter and did not choose to exercise powers as per Rule 14(3) of the Rules of 1970. The orders do not suffer with any error that may warrant interference of this Court while exercising the powers under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The petition for writ is accordingly dismissed. (GOVIND MATHUR), J. 3. Sanjay/ 4.