1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1556/2008 (State Vs. Maga Ram & Ors.) Date of order : 06.04.2009 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS Mr. Hemant Choudhary, Govt. Counsel. In this writ petition, the Colonization Department of State of Raj. has challenged the judgment dated 26.9.2001 passed by Board of Revenue in revision petition filed by respondent – Maga Ram whereby the Board of Revenue has reversed the order dated 26.9.1997 while exercising the power under Rule 22 (3) of the Rajasthan Colonisation (Allotment and Sale of Govt. Land in the Indira Gandhi Canal Colony Area), Rules, 1975. Brief facts of the case are that an allotment was made in favour of respondent – Maga Ram in the year 1990. Later on, an application was moved by the Dy. Commissioner, Colonization and authorized officer (vigilance), Bikaner under Rule 22 (3) of the Rules of 1975 in which it was specifically stated that the allotment was made illegally on the premises that Maga Ram is bonafide agriculturist but in fact Maga Ram was 2 not agriculturist and he was doing other job. Upon the said application, the Commissioner, Colonization cancelled the allotment made in favor of respondent No.1 – Maga Ram. The said judgment was delivered on 26.9.1997. Thereafter, a revision petition was filed by respondent No.1 – Maga Ram. The revision petition filed by Maga Ram was accepted by Board of Revenue and it has been held that report of Tehsildar shows that he did not hold the detail enquiry as per the profession of the allottee and in place of their occupation and profession was disclosed whereas the respondent No.1 Maga Ram is resident of village Kanoi District Jaisalmer. The allotting authority personally enquired into the matter by holding a camp in the village Kanoi and it was found that the respondent Maga Ram was cultivating the land. In this view of the matter, finding arrived at by Board of Revenue does not require any interference because the Board of Revenue after considering all the aspects of the matter has held that the allotment has rightly been made after due consideration by the advisory committee. Accordingly, I see no reason to interfere in the order dated 26.9.2001 passed by Board of Revenue. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. (GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS), J. arun