D.P.GUPTA, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed against the order of the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan at Ajmer, dated March 10, 1981.
(2.) THE petitioner was admittedly employed as a class IV servant in the Higher Secondary School, Shri Bijainagar, since November 1, 1958. A temporary allotment of agricultural land in Chak No. 2 B.L.M was made in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner applied for a permanent allotment of the land 'n question and an order of allotment was passed in favour of the petitioner on January 18, 1974 in respect of 25 Bighas of land situated in Chak No. 2 B.L.M. of village Bilochia in Tehsil Anoopgarh District Sri Ganganagar.
(3.) A complaint was made that the petitioner had obtained allotment of the aforesaid land by furnishing false information. Thereupon the Deputy Commissioner, Colonization, Rajasthan Canal Project, Bijainagar issued a notice to the petitioner as to why the allotment made in his favour be not cancelled and the land be ordered to be resumed because he had furnished false information regarding his eligibility for allotment of land, intending to deceive the officer making the allotment. According to the petitioner the notice was not served on him personally, but was served on his son. The Deputy Commissioner Colonisation sought information from the Head Master of the Higher Secondary School, Shri Bijainagar, as to whether the petitioner was employed in that school and was in Government service. The Head Master furnished the requisite information and slated that the petitioner was employed as a Class IV servant since November 1, 1958. Thereupon, the Deputy Commissioner, by his order dated December 24, 1976, held that the petitioner was not a 'landless person' and was not an agriculturist by profession and consequently the allotment made in favour of the petitioner was set aside and the land was ordered to be resumed. An appeal preferred by the petitioner before the Additional Commissioner, Colonization cum - -Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner was dismissed on March 30, 1978 and it was held that the petitioner was not eligible for allotment of land under the relevant Rules. The petitioner filed a further appeal before the Board of Revenue but the same was also dismissed by the Board on March 10, 1981. A review petition filed by the petitioner also met the same fate. Consequently, the present writ petition was filed by the petitioner in this Court. The main argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner before us was that the notice issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Colonization, was not served upon the petitioner and that there was a breach of the principles of natural justice as the petitioner was not given a reasonable opportunity of presenting his defence. The Deputy Commissioner, Colonization and the Appellate Authority as well as the Board of Revenue have held that the notice issued by the Deputy Commissioner was served upon the petitioner's son and that in pursuance of the service thereof, the petitioned himself appeared before the Deputy Commissioner, Colonization, on 30th September, 1976 and was given an opportunity of presenting his defence. There is no reason for us to disturb the finding of fact concurrently arrived at by the concerned authorities in this respect.;