BALIA, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner.
(2.) NONE present for the respondent. The petitioner challenges the order of Board of Revenue dt. 18. 9. 90 (Annex. 6) and order of Assistant Colonisation Commissioner, Indira Gandhi Canal Project, Chhatargarh dt. 13. 2. 85 (Annex. 4) by which land in question which is a part of Muraba No. 51/38 of Chak No. 14 LKD was allotted in favour of the respondent No. 4 Bhagirath. The brief facts necessary for the present purposes are that in the first instance by order dt. 27. 4. 1983, 13 bighas 8 biswas land was allotted in favour of Bhagirath as a land-less person. Out of these land 5 bighas 14 biswas land in command area and 7 bighas and 14 biswas land in uncommand area. On 27. 03. 1984 said Bhagirath Singh applied for being landless person and has been allotted land less than the measurement of land which he is entitled held additional allotment in favour of additional can be made whose land in dispute measuring 8 bighas was allotted to said Bhagirath on 13. 2. 1985 by the Competent Officer. Against this order of allotment of 8 bighas land on 13. 2. 85 the present petitioner preferred an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority on 29. 10. 87 inter alia on the ground that he has applied for being a Khatedar tenant of land u/s. 15aa (3) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 and excluding the land allotted vide impugned order because it was not adjacent to the land already allotted to the respondent-Bhagirath. The same could not be allotted to him under the Rules. The Revenue Appellate Authority vide its order dt. 23. 05. 1988 found that in fact present petitioner Hiralal had come to know about the order of impugned allotment on 15. 11. 85 and the appeal has been filed on 29. 10. 87, almost two years after he had come to know about the order. Yet for no reason he thought it fit not to dismiss the appeal on the grounds of limitation and allowed the appeal on merit.
(3.) THE order of the Revenue Appellate Authority was challenged by the allottee Bhagirath before the Board of Revenue by way of revision. Learned Member of the Board found there being no cause shown which prevented the present petitioner from filing appeal within time, much less sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within limitation, the exercise of power by the Revenue Appellate Authority in condoning the delay was not judicious but was on extraneous consideration. On this finding Board of Revenue was of the opinion that appeal of the petitioner-Hiralal ought to have been rejected on the ground of limitation alone. On the merit also it was found by the learned Member of the Board of Revenue that allotment made in favour of the said Bhagirath could not be said to be nullity which from the inception could be ignored. In these circumstances at the instance of the present petitioner said allotment could not have been set at naught. It was also found by the Board that application for declaration of his Khatedari rights by the applicant u/s. 15aa (3) was not in respect of particular land in question. Therefore his application could not come in the way of treating the application of another-applicant for allotment of additional land, which could be allotted to him under the Rules of 1975. It was also pointed out by the Revenue that while allowing the appeal no application for allotment of land in question on behalf of present petition was pending under the Rules of 1975 and therefore pendency of petitioner's application u/s. 15aa (3) of Rajasthan Tenancy Act could not come in the way of treating the application for allotment of the land which was recorded as `rakba-raj' to the respondent-Bhagirath. It was also found that merely because land allotted to Bhagirath later on was not already adjacent to the allottee in 1983 would not affect the later allotment. Because it is not the essential requirement that land of which allotment is made to make good the holdings of landless person upto permissible limit, must be situated adjacent to lands already held by or allotted to such landless person or that allotment of distant land in favour of the said allottee to the extent permissible to hold under the Rules will make the allotment invalid. ;