JUDGMENT 1. - These two writ petition Nos. 1745/76 and 1746/76 are being disposed of by this one order. 2. The petitioners claim to be ex-Jagirdar of Jagir Chilkoi of Taranagar Tehsil, District Churu. Section 19 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952, provided that land out of the categories mentioned in that section, may, if available be allotted (to Jagirdar) as khudkasht under chapter IV of the said Act. Clause (vi) of sub-section (1) of section 19 specifies one of the categories of land as follows : "(vi) Lard commanded by the Bhakra or the Chambal Project or by the Jawai Bard or by any other irrigation project provided that the allotment of such land as khudkasht shall be on such concessional terms and conditions as may be prescribed." In pursuance of this provision, the Rajasthan Government framed the Rajasthan Lal Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs 'Concession for Khudkasht on Rajasthan Canal Project Area Rules, 1963, which were published in the Gazette on 4-4-1963. These rules provided that an application for allotment under these rules shall be made in Form 3 and submitted to the Commissioner for Khudkasht land through the Tehsildar of the Tehsil in which the applicant's jagir was situated. The Commissioner for Khudkasht was then required to send to the concerned Deputy Commissioner, Colonisation, a list in form A of all the persons selected by him for allotment of land in the Rajasthan Canal Project Area. The list was required to be arranged in order of priority according to the date of the application. The Deputy Commissioner, Colonisation, was to arrange the available lands in a particular area that may be reserved by the Government for allotment of khudkasht land in such order of priority as may be necessary in view of the class of soil, facilities of irrigation, and other convenience determined according to the local condition and make allotment of land to the applicants for khudkasht. It appears that rule 7 as it stood prior its amendment provided that each Jagirdar shall be allotted two squares out of which full price of land shall be charged for one square and only betterment levy for the other square. The petitioners appear to have applied for allotment of land under the aforesaid rule. It appears that rule 7 as it stood prior its amendment provided that each Jagirdar shall be allotted two squares out of which full price of land shall be charged for one square and only betterment levy for the other square. The petitioners appear to have applied for allotment of land under the aforesaid rule. The Khudkasht Commissioner by his letter dated 16-12-1965 wrote to the Colonisation Commissioner, Bikaner, that one of the each petitioner may be allotted one square (25 Bighas of land) in the Rajasthan Canal Area out of the land reserved for this purpose by the Govt by its order dated 1-1-1964. The Rule 7 was amended in 29th June 1967 but the notification thereof was published in the Gazette on 21-9-67. By this amendment it was provided that each Jagirdar shall be allotted only 20 Bighas of land and he shall have to pay only the betterment charges for it. But before the publication of the amended rule in the Gazette, the Deputy Commissioner, Colonisation, by his order dated 4-7-67 in case of Narendra Kumar Goswami and by his order dated 21-6-67 in case of Dau Dayal Goswami allotted them each 20 Bighas of land in the Rajasthan Canal Project Area. He added a note that price and betterment charges shall be paid in accordance with the rules. 3. The petitioner Dau Dayal Goswami moved an application on November 30, 1967, that they should have been but have not yet been allotted 5 Bighas of land on temporary cultivation and he prayed that such temporary allotment may now be made to them. The Deputy Commissioner, Colonisation, thereupon made a temporary allotment of 5 Bighas of land to them each on 7-12-67. The Tehsildar, Anupgarh, issued 'on 7-9-76 a notice to the petitioners demanding from each of them Rs. 1182/- in one instalment of the price of the land of 5 Bighas fixed under the Rajasthan Colonisation; (General Colony), Conditions, 1955 Rules 14 and 15. 4. The petitioners now pray for a writ of prohibition, restraining the respondent from recovering the price of 5 Bighas of land except the betterment levy. They further prayed that the petitioner respondents be restrained from taking action against the petitioners for non-payment of the said demand. 5. 4. The petitioners now pray for a writ of prohibition, restraining the respondent from recovering the price of 5 Bighas of land except the betterment levy. They further prayed that the petitioner respondents be restrained from taking action against the petitioners for non-payment of the said demand. 5. The ground on which this prayer is based is that under the law, it was the Khudkasht Commissioner who was the allotting authority and when the Khudkasht Commissioner directed allotment of 25 Bighas, the Deputy Colonisation Commissioner, could not reduce the area to 20 Bighas. The ameneded rule 7 though sanctioned before the date of allotment was actually published in the Rajasthan Gazetter after the allotment was made and therefore did not apply to their case. Both in view of the letter of the Khudkasht Commissioner and the unamended rule 7, the petitioner were entitled to 25 Bighas of land. But the Deputy Commissioner Colonisation, only issued orders for allotment of 20 Bighas. The amended rule 7 though sanctioned before the date of allotment, was actually established in the Rajasthan Gazette after the allotment was made and therefore did not apply to their cases. Both in view of the letter of the Khudkasht Commissioner and the unamended rule 7, the petitioners were entitled to 25 Bighas of land. But the Deputy Commissioner Colonisation, only issue orders for allotment of 20 Bighas though on temporary lease basis was covered by the letter of the Khudkasht Commissioner and the unamended rule 7 and the petitioner cannot therefore be asked to pay the price of the aforesaid 5 Bighas of land and the demand of price, is illegal. 6. I have heard arguments and considered the matter. Upon a reading of the aforesaid rules, I find that there is nothing in the rules that the jagirdar shall be allotted land under these rules free of any price. As a matter of fact rule 10 contemplates that all allotments shall be on Ghair Khatedari Tenancy basis and full khatedari rights will be confirmed only after the payment of price in respect of one square and betterment charge in respect of the other has been made. The Khudkasht Commissioner has not said anything about the price or otherwise. As a matter of fact rule 10 contemplates that all allotments shall be on Ghair Khatedari Tenancy basis and full khatedari rights will be confirmed only after the payment of price in respect of one square and betterment charge in respect of the other has been made. The Khudkasht Commissioner has not said anything about the price or otherwise. To my mind, therefore, even in respect of 20 Bighas of land, the petitioners were required to pay full price if they want khatedari rights therein the rules provided for exemption from price in respect of the second murabba and not the first or a sole murabba. The concession is available only if two squares were taken. Assuming for the sake of argument that the allotment of 20 Bighas was free of any price, the petitioners cannot claim such exemption in respect of the 5 Bighas of land which was allotted to them on temporary cultivation lease upon their own request. If they had felt that they were allotted land short by 5 Bighas of land which was allotted to them on temporary cultivation lease upon their own request. If they had felt that they were allotted land short by 5 Bighas in July 1967, then they should have made a request for further allotment for 5 Bighas in the year 1967 itself. It is not open t them to first pray for a temporary lease and then when price thereof was demanded, to come and request the court in the year 1976 to restraint the State Government from charging any price. I must also make it clear that it entirely incorrect to assume that the order of allotment does confer any such right to an ex-Jagirdar the area of allotment cannot be reduced from 25 Bighas to 20 Bighas. The order of allotment is a mere offer and it is left to the Deputy Colonisation Commissioner, under Rule 6 of the said rules to make allotments in view of the several factors mentioned in that rule. 7. Thus, the petitions are not only highly belated but are also misconceived and it appears to me that the petitioners having applied for and having accepted allotment on temporary lease basis cannot now be allowed to convert this land into allotment which they think they could claim under the order of 16-12-65. 7. Thus, the petitions are not only highly belated but are also misconceived and it appears to me that the petitioners having applied for and having accepted allotment on temporary lease basis cannot now be allowed to convert this land into allotment which they think they could claim under the order of 16-12-65. Such a subterfuge simply cannot be entertained by the High Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction. The petitions are therefore, dismissed. There shall however be no order as to costs.Writ dismissed. *******