Sangeet Lodha, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dt. 07.07.1997 passed by the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, whereby the revision petition preferred by the petitioner against the order dt. 06.05.1992 of Revenue Appellate Authority (in short "RAA"), Sri Ganganagar setting aside the allotment of the land made in favour of the petitioner vide order dt. 03.12.1990 by the Sub -Divisional Officer (in short "SDO"), Raisinghnagar, has been affirmed.
(2.) THE petitioner was allotted barani land measuring 49.10 bighas comprising Murabba Nos. 238 and 203 in Chak Ramsara Kumaharan, District Sri Ganganagar on temporary cultivation lease in Samvat 2012 i.e. in the year 1955. He applied for the allotment of land on permanent basis. The application was dismissed on 05.06.1976 by the Competent Authority inasmuch as, the petitioner did not appear and produce any evidence in support of his claim. According to the petitioner, he preferred a fresh application for permanent allotment which was accepted by the Allotting Authority i.e. SDO, Raisinghnagar vide order dt. 02.12.1990. Aggrieved by the allotment order dt. 02.12.1990, the respondents No. 1 to 4 preferred an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority which was allowed vide order dt. 06.05.1992 and the allotment made in favour of the petitioner was cancelled. The allotment was cancelled by the RAA on the ground that earlier on inquiry being made, it was revealed that the petitioner is not a bona fide resident of Chak No. 43 PS and for this reason, his application for permanent allotment was rejected by the Allotting Authority vide order dt. 05.07.1976. Relying upon the inquiry report by the Naib Tehsildar and order dt. 19.11.1990 passed by the Tehsildar, the RAA arrived at the finding that the cancellation of allotment made in favour of the petitioner cannot be faulted with.
(3.) THE revision petition preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed by the Board of Revenue by the order impugned and the order passed by the RAA cancelling the permanent allotment made in favour of the petitioner has been affirmed. The Board of Revenue opined that the land in question already stands allotted to Shri Bishan Singh and Others and their allotment has not been cancelled by the competent authority, therefore, the same land could not have been allotted to the petitioner herein.;