{ 1 } IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR J U D G M E N T D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.204/2003 LRs of Bakhtawar Singh Vs. Board of Revenue & Ors. Date of Judgment : 5.10.2010 PRESENT HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SAPRE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. Sudhir Sharma, for the appellant. Mr. G.J.Gupta and Mr.Hemant Choudhary, AGC, for the respondents. BY THE COURT: (PER HON'BLE A.M. SAPRE, J) This is an intra-court appeal filed by writ petitioner of Writ Petition No.3239/2000 against an order dated 13.2.2003 passed by Single Judge in above mentioned writ petition. 2. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge (as His Lordship then was) dismissed the appellants' writ petition and in consequence upheld the order of Board of Revenue impugned therein. 3. So the question that arises for consideration in this { 2 } appeal is whether learned Single Judge was justified in dismissing the writ petition and in consequence justified in upholding the order of Board of Revenue impugned in the writ petition by the appellant? 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and on perusal of record of the case, we concur with the view taken by learned Single Judge and in consequence dismiss the appeal by upholding the impugned order. 5. The order impugned is short one and hence we consider it proper to reproduce it in verbatim infra:- “This writ petition has been filed against the judgment and order of the Board of Revenue dated 28-10-98 and subsequent rejection of the review application vide order dated 28-7- 2000. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that petitioner had been allotted the land measuring 20 Bighas under the provisions of the Rajasthan Colonisation (Allotment and Sale of Government Land in IGNP Area), Rules, 1975. Land adjacent to him, measuring 20 Bighas, had been allotted to one Shri Mula Ram. After the death of Mula Ram, the land was mutated in the name of his legal representatives. Subsequently, after the death of Mula Ram, the land allotted to him was cancelled. A small patch of land, measuring 4 Bighas 18 Biswas was also lying unallotted therein. Thus, the entire land, i.e. land once allotted to Mula Ram and the small patch, { 3 } became available for allotment. Instead of allotting the said land to any eligible applicant, under the garb of allotment of small patch of land measuring 4 Bighas 18 Biswas, it was allotted to the petitioner without following any procedure or without filing any application. The said order has been cancelled and the order of cancellation stood affirmed upto the Board of Revenue. Admittedly, there was no application made by the petitioner for allotting the small patch. Therefore, the question of allotting the small patch did not arise. Moreso, if the olther land once allotted to Mula Ram stood cancelled, the entire 24 Bighas 12 Biswas of land became available and this so-called 4 Bigha 18 Biswas (so-called small patch) has been wrongly carved out from the total land available at one place. In fact, no piece of it could be carved out for allotment as a small patch of land. In this fact-situation, no interference is called for in the order passed by this learned Board of Revenue. The petition stands dismissed” 6. Mere perusal of aforequoted order would go to show that appellant has no case and hence he rightly lost the litigation. 7. The dispute relates to land allotted to appellant measuring 20 Bighas in village Srikaranpur (Vijaynagar) District Sriganganagar under the provisions of Rajasthan Colonisation (Allotment and Sale of Government Land in { 4 } IGNP Area) Rules, 1975 (for short called hereinafter 'The Rules'). 8. It was held and not disputed by appellant that he did not even make an application for allotment of land in question and yet was able to get it. Such allotment was held illegal being dehors the Rules. It was thus cancelled. This cancellation was upheld right upto writ Court when the writ petition was dismissed by impugned order. 9. How can an allotment made dehors the Rules be upheld. When the rules provides a particular procedure to be followed for allotment by a person and if it is found that the same was not followed then such allotment cannot be upheld in favour of an allottee when questioned in Court of law. It is this finding, which was recorded by learned Single Judge in the impugned order quoted supra by upholding the orders of Board of Revenue to which we respectfully concur. 10. In view of foregoing discussion, we find no case to interfere in the impugned order. As a consequence, we find no merit in this appeal. It is, accordingly dismissed. ( DINESH MAHESHWARI ),J. ( A. M. SAPRE ),J. /tarun/