BALIA, J. - (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order of learned single Judge vide order dated 2. 2. 99. The matter is listed for cancellation of stay application. However, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties we have heard the appeal itself.
(2.) THE facts necessary for the present purposes are that allotment under the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotments of Land for Agricultural Purpose) Rules, 1970 [hereinafter called the Rules] has been made for the land in question in favour of one Roopa Ram respondent No. 5 who is an Ex-army man. THE present appellant Shanker Lal and Narain alongwith Sita Ram filed an application under Rule 14 (iv) of the Rule for cancellation of allotment made in favour of Roopa Ram to the Collector, Bhilwara. Actually on the ground that allotment made in favour of Roopa Ram is not proper and the applicants are in possession of the land prior to allotment made in favour of Roopa Ram and are entitled to be considered for regularisation as their possession is prior to consideration of application of Roopa Ram. This application was allowed by the Addl. Collector vide order dated 12. 8. 93 and the order of allotment was set aside. Against said order Roopa Ram preferred appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority Ajmer and impleaded State of Raj. , Narain, Shanker Lal and Sita Ram as respondents. THE Revenue Appellate Authority allowed the appeal of Roopa Ram on 28. 10. 96 and restored the allotment in favour of Rooma Ram. Aggrieved with that order Narain and Shanker Lal alone preferred second appeal before the Board of Revenue, Ajmer under Section 76 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act. An objection was raised on behalf of respondent Roopa Ram that the applicant has no right to prefer an appeal in proceedings under Rule 14 of the aforesaid rules. Upholding the preliminary objection the appeal of Narain and Shanker Lal was dismissed by the Board of Revenue on 23. 9. 97, against which they filed writ petition No. 2821/98 which has been dismissed by learned single Judge vide order under challenge in this appeal. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties we are of the opinion that this appeal as well as writ petition deserves to be allowed and the case be remanded to Board of Revenue for deciding the appeal of present appellants-petitioners on merit. The appeal of the appellants before the Board has not been dismissed on merits but by holding that appellants have no locus standi to file an appeal in respect of order passed under Rule 14 (4) of the Rules of 1970. Rule 14 which provides for condition of allotment under Sub Rule 4 provides as under: " Rule 14 (1 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . Rule 14 (2) . . . . . . . . . . . . Rule 14 (4) . . . . . . . . . . . . Rule 14 (4) "the Collector shall have the power to cancel any allotment made by a Sub-Divisional Officer 10 (or a Tehsildar under the rules repealed by rule 21 of the rules) either suo-moto or on the application of any person in case the allotment has been secured through fraud or, misrepresentation or has been made against rules or in case the allottee has committed breach of any of the conditions of allotment: Provided that no such order to the prejudice of any person shall be passed without giving such person an opportunity of being heard. " Perusal of the aforesaid rule shows that power has been conferred on the Collector to cancel any allotment made by a Sub-divisional Officer or Tehsildar where allotment has been secured through fraud or misrepresentation or has been made against rules or allottee has committed any breach of conditions of allotment. It further envisages that such power can be exercised by the Collector either suo moto or on a complaint of another person. This is to be discerned that the power which has been conferred is exercisable not merely suo moto on an information by anyone but it envisages that such power to cancel can be exercised on an application of another person in this regard. The very fact that statute envisages filing of an application by any person, it brings in the presence of the person as a party to the proceedings as an applicant for cancellation of the allotment made under Rule 14. The applicant cannot be considered merely an informant having no locus or interest in the proceedings after lodging the complaint. His position is not like an informant who lodges first information report under Cr. P. C. about commission of an offence. On filing of an application a lis is instituted which necessarily is required to culminate in some order which is quasi judicial in nature. The application cannot be ignored and has to be adjudicated by the Collector. If he fails to dispose of the application, in a given case the applicant may seek mandamus to decide his application. That itself is sufficient to give locus to the applicant to seek remedies against orders passed in such application. The provision makes implicit in it that applicant who seeks cancellation of allotment already is put under an obligation to establish facts alleged in such application to lay foundation for cancellation of an order of allotment already in existence. Law does not envisage inviting of frivolous application by busy body. What ultimately happens on deciding of such an application on merit does not affect the maintainability. The outcome depends upon the material that comes on record and facts proved during such proceedings.
(3.) WE may clarify that the fact that an applicant is a party to proceedings, does not detract from the fact that such an application may also serve as information on the basis of which Collector can act suo moto, particularly in case where after lodging the application the applicant becomes disinterested and may not proceed in the matter. In such event Collector is always free to act suo moto on the basis of information contained in such application, if he considers the same to be credible to found action under Rule 14 (4) of the Rules. We are unable to accept the proposition that after an application is made alleging that the question of allotment has not been made according to the rules or has been secured through fraud or misrepresentation, he walks out of the proceedings. If he makes a complaint that the allotment has been secured through fraud or misrepresentation it becomes his obligation to establish how and in what manner such an interpretation which envisages application for cancellation of allotment without obligation to establish the facts mentioned in application, in our opinion would open the flood gates of frivolous applications to the flourish of unscrpulous elements resulting in abuse of provisions itself. An interpretation leading to such a result has to be avoided. Apart from the aforesaid we are further of the opinion that appellants have otherwise shown sufficient interest to sustain their locus to carry on the lis. It has come up with a case in application that they were in possession of the land in question prior to allotment made in favour of Roopa Ram and had a prior right for consideration for regularisation. He clearly laid claims to such right. Whether they are able to sustain such claim, can only be decided after the applicants are heard and have an opportunity to establish their claim. The Board has failed to notice this aspect of the matter notwithstanding that such contention was raised on behalf of the appellant. ;