M. B. SHARMA, J. - (1.) KHASRA No. 957 measuring 9 bighas 1 biswa situated in Gram Dhani Lali Tehsil Jamuaramgarh was recorded as 'gair Mumkin Rasta. Out of that land the said KHASRA No. 957. 8 bighas, four bighas to each of the petitioners, was allotted by the S. D. O. Amber under his order dated October 29. 1977 under the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Land for Agriculture Purposes) Rules, 1970 (for short, the Rules ). The possession of the land was also given to the petitioner sometime in the month of January 1978. An application was made by the non-petitioner No. 3 under sub-rule (4) of Rule 14 of the Rules before the Additional Collector, Jaipur. In the said application it was stated that the nature of the land was 'gair Mumkin' and the same could not be allotted under the Rules. The Additional Collector dismissed that application. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Addl. Collector dated July 17, 1978, the non-petitioner No. 3 preferred an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority on August 5, 1978 and the said authority dismissed the appeal on the ground that the non-petitioner No. 3 has no locus standi. The non-petitioner No. 3 then went to the Board of Revenue in revision and the Board of Revenue on August 12, 1985 allowed the revision petition.
(2.) THE petitioners have challenged the aforesaid order of the Board of Revenue on the ground that the non-petitioner No. 3 was not an aggrieved party and he has no locus standi to file the revision petition before the Board of Revenue. It is also contended by Mr. Pareek, learned counsel for the petitioner that 'gair Mumkin Rasta' could also be allotted under the Rules. In support of his contention, Mr. Pareek placed reliance on Durga Prasad V. Pannalal, (1), a Full Bench decision of the Board of Revenue. Learned Member, Board of Revenue has taken a view that the nature of the land as per the revenue record was gair mumkin rasta. The land was thus gair which maybe meant for public purpose, and as such under section 16 of The Rent Act that Khatedari right could not accrue on such land. Therefore, the land was not available under rule 14 of the Rules for allotment to the petitioners. The allotment was not in accordance with law and under sub-rule (4) of Rule 14 on an application the same could be set aside. It can hardly be disputed that all the villagers have a right to passage through any land which is recorded as rasta. It has come in the order of the Board of Revenue that in the application under rule 14 (4) of the Rules and it was also contended on behalf of the complainant-non-petitioner No. 3 that the only way to various dhanis was through khasra No 957 which was entered as Gair Mumkin Rasta in the revenue records. It can therefore be said that under sec 166) of the Raj Tenancy Act, Khatedari right could not accrue in respect of land in dispute which was recorded as Gair Mumkin Rasta and only was meant for public purpose. Therefore, under rule 14 of the Rules the land was not available for allotment. The allotment made by the Sub Divisional Officer was in contravention of the Rules, in Durga Prasad's case (supra) the Full Bench of the Board of Revenue took a view that the Sub Divisional Officer has no power to change the classification of soil. The Full Bench was consider-ing the case where the land was recorded as Gair Mumkin, pahad and not a case where the land was recorded as Gair Mumkin Rasta. Gair Mumkin pahad may not be the same land which may fall under section 16 (6) but Gair Mumkin Rasta is such land which will fail under section 16 (6) as it is meant for public purpose. The Full Bench said that the fact is that the lands recorded as gair mumkin which are not covered by sec. 16 of the Raj. Tenancy Act or otherwise are not excluded by rule 4 of the 1970 Allotment Rules are available for allotment under these rules. Thus, the Full Bench itself expressed that if the land is such which is covered by section 16 of the Raj. Tenancy Act and as such no khatedari right accrued and the same could not be available for allotment. I need not go into the question whether the non-petitioner No. 3 has locus standi or not-in detail. Prima facie, in my opinion the non-petitioner being villager has a right to use the land and as such could file an application before the Collector for cancellation of allotment on the ground that the same has been allotted in contravention of the Rules. Even otherwise this court will not interfere in the order of the Board of Revenue if the interference will amount to restoration of an illegal order. Reference is made to Jagga Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan, (2) a Full Bench decision of this Court of five Judges reported in AIR 1980 Raj-1 to which I was also a party. The writ petition has no force. It is hereby dismissed summarily. .;