JUDGMENT 1. - These four writ petitions are based on almost "identical facts and are, therefore, being disposed of by a common order In these petitions the petitioners seek for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction against the `Khudkast' Commissioner directing them to allot two `murabbas' of land in the Rajasthan Canal area instead of one 'murabba' which has been allotted to each one of them by the Khudkasht Commissioner. They further pray that the direction be issued to the Colonization Commissioner to allot each one of them permanently 5 `bighas' of land, which has been temporarily allotted to each one of them. 2. All these petitioners are ex Jagirdars of Jagir Dungrana, Tchsil Bhadra, District Ganganagar and Sarupdisar, Tehsil Bikaner, District Bikaner. Their jagirs were resumed under the Govt notification in the year 1954 and possession of their Jagirs were taken on the same day. Each one of them was allotted one 'murabba' comprising 25 `bighas' as `Khudkasht land in December, 1965 but the possession was not given to them within two months as directed by the Khudkasht Commissioner. However, in the year 1967 the Deputy Colonization Commissioner handed over possession of 20 `bighas' only to each one of them although each one of them was to be given possession of 25 `bighas' under the Khudkasht, Commissioner order. They therefore, made grievance in respect of the allotment of 5 `bighas' and rest contended with it for a very long time. As the facts in all these petitions are identical, to appreciate the real controversy raised in all the writ petitions, it will be appropriate to give briefly from fruits one of the writ petitions, namely, S.B Civil Writ Petition No. 2971, Pratap Singh v. The State of Rajasthan and others . The decision in this petition shall also govern the rest of the petitions. 3. Petitioner Pratap Singh is ex Jagirdar of Dungrana & Sarupdesar. His Jagir was resumed in the year 1954 under the Government notification & the possession of his Jagir was taken over birth Government on October 29, 1954. On the resumption of Jagir the petitioner submitted application on December 27, 1954 under section 14 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of jagirs Act, it short `the Act' read with rule 10 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Rules, in short `the Rules', to the Commissioner, Khudkast, Rajasthan, Jaipur. 4. On the resumption of Jagir the petitioner submitted application on December 27, 1954 under section 14 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of jagirs Act, it short `the Act' read with rule 10 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Rules, in short `the Rules', to the Commissioner, Khudkast, Rajasthan, Jaipur. 4. The Khudkast Commissioner, after calling reports from the concerned Collectors and after getting inquiry conducted, by his order dated December 23, 1965 (Ex. 2); allotted one 'murabba' or 25 `bighas' of land in the Rajasthan Canal area to Pratap Singh, the petitioner, to hand over the possession of 25 `bighas' of land in Rajasthan Canal area within two months. The petitioner was, however not handed over within two months. The petitioner, therefore, submitted an application on January 27, 1966, to the Deputy Commissioner Colonization, for handing over possession of one `murabba' of lamed at an early date. He was, however, informed that the possession could not be given under the Government orders till the Rules are amended by the Government. The Deputy Colonization Commissioner, therefore, sat tight in the matter of handing over the possession. The petitioner again along with other Jagirdars of Dungrana, made representation on August 24, 1967, to give possession of 5 `bighas' more in pursuance of the order dated December 28, 1965. The Khudkasht Commissioner issued order on September 16, 1967 to give possession of 5 more `bighas' of land to the petitioner on a temporary basis. It will be pertinent to mention here that the petitioner made grievance in respect of 5 `bighas' of land only and did not make grievance in respect of one `murabba' from December 23, 1965, till November, 15, 1967, when he made representation for allotment of one more 'murabba'. The Khudkasht Commissioner, after disposing of the representation of the Petitioner for allotment of one more `murabba' intimated him that no further action can be taken, as there is no further land available in the Rajasthan Canal area by letter dated August 19, 1968. No further representations for Allotment of Additional `murabba' was made till the decision of appeal in Motisingh's writ petition upto May 1, 1972. It may be mentioned here that S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 177 of 1969 was filed at the instance of Motisingh, one of the Jagirdars of Dungrana. No further representations for Allotment of Additional `murabba' was made till the decision of appeal in Motisingh's writ petition upto May 1, 1972. It may be mentioned here that S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 177 of 1969 was filed at the instance of Motisingh, one of the Jagirdars of Dungrana. That writ petition was allowed on July 15, 1971, where under the Government of Rajasthan was directed by this Court to allot two `murabbas' of land to Shri Motisingh. The judgment of Motisingh tempted the petitioner also, who although was satisfied with 25 `bighas' of land only came up with a further demand of one additional `murabba' on June 1, 1972, but the petitioner's demand was not acceded to on the ground that he could not avail of 'he benefit aforesaid, as the Judgment was only in favour of Motisingh. Consequently, the demand for one additional `murabba was rejected and the petitioner was informed of the same by the Khudkasht Commissioner's letter dated November 2, 1973. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner has moved the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution on September 11, 1974, with the prayers mentioned above. 5. The State has, in its reply contested the claim of the petitioner for permanent allotment of 5 bighas' of land and also the allotment of one additional 'murabba' & has inter alia alleged that the petitioner was entitled to 20 `bighas' only and nothing more. The State has further strongly contested in its reply that the petitioner's claim is grossly belated one and prayed for the dismissal of the writ petition on that score alone. 6. Mr. B.L Pnrohit, learned counsel for the petitioner, has urged the following contentions before me : (1) The non-petitioners were under an obligation to allot one additional 'murabba' under the Rules of 1963, as his application would be governed by the Rules of 1963; (2) In any case the petitioner was entitled to 25 bighas' of land order dated December 28, 1965, passed by the Khudkasht Commissioner. The Deputy Colonization Commissioner has no jurisdiction to reduce the number of 25 bighas' to 20 `bighas'. It therefore was urged that the petitioner was at any rate, entitled to permanent allotment of 5 more 'bighas' of land. 7. Before dealing with the contentions on merits, it will be appropriate here to take up the preliminary objection of the learned Government Advocate first. It therefore was urged that the petitioner was at any rate, entitled to permanent allotment of 5 more 'bighas' of land. 7. Before dealing with the contentions on merits, it will be appropriate here to take up the preliminary objection of the learned Government Advocate first. The preliminary objection is that the petition is grossly belated and therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed on that score alone. His contention is that the Khudkasht Commissioner had by his order dated December 23, 1965, allotted 25 `bighas` of land to the petitioner & directed the handing over the possession to the petitioner within two months but the possession of 25 bighas' was not given as directed by the Khudkasht Commissioner. The petitioner did make grievance by making representation for handing over possession of 5 `bighas'. but did not raise any objection for allotment of ore more `murabba' till July 1972 and there is no satisfactory explanation for the delay as regards the claim of 25 Bighas' of the petitioner. Learned Government Advocate has further made a feeble attempt to press into service the point of delay on the part of the petitioner as regards claim for permanent allotment of 5 `bighas'. 8. I propose to deal with the preliminary objection into two parts, one in respect of the allotment of one more `murabba', i.e. 25 bighas' and another in respect of permanent allotment of 5 bighas' which have already been allotted on temporary basis to the petitioner. 9. So far as the petition in respect of the allotment of one more `murabba' is concerned, it is grossly belated. The petitioner was allotted 25 bighas' of land only by the `Khudkasht' Commissioner vide his order dated December 23, 1965. The petitioner did not raise any grievance in respect of the allotment of one additional `murabba' till November 11, 1967 and seems to have rest contented with the allotment of 25 `bighas' only. The Khudkasht Commissioner, while disposing of the representation of the petitioner intimated the petitioner that no further action can be taken, as there is no further land available in the Rajasthan Canal area vide this letter dated August 19, 1968. The petitioner remained silent till July 1, 1972, when the appeal in the case of writ petition filed by Motisingh, one of the Jagirdars of Dungrana, was decided. The petitioner remained silent till July 1, 1972, when the appeal in the case of writ petition filed by Motisingh, one of the Jagirdars of Dungrana, was decided. There is no satisfactory explanation on the part of the petitioner as to why he sat over a period of 4 years since August 19, 1968, when he was categorically informed by the Khudkasht Commissioner that no further land can be allotted to the petitioner, as the same was not available in the Rajasthan Canal area by letter dated August 19, 1968. The contention that the petitioner was waiting for the decision of Motisingh's writ petition, which was test case, has no substance in it. The petitioner, like Motisingh, had a distinct and separate claim in respect of the allotment of one more 'murabba'. He cannot take advantage of the time taken in the decision of Motisingh's writ petition as well as in the appeal. The decision of Motisingh's case could ensure for his benefit only : vide Gurnam Singh v. State of Rajasthan and Ors., 1971 (2) SLR 799 . Learned counsel in this regard placed strong reliance on Ramchandra Shankar Deodhar and Other v. The State of Maharashtra and others, AIR 1974 SC 259 . But the facts of that case are quite distinguishable. In the present case the petitioner was informed of the rejection of his representation dated November 15, 1969. The further contention that the petitioner had been making representations in respect of his claim for the second 'murabba' been making representations in respect of his claim for the second 'murabba' and, therefore, the delay stands explained, has also no merit in it. The petitioner was informed by the Khudkasht Commissioner by his letter dated August 19, 1968, that no further land was available in the Rajasthan Canal area. The representation, therefore, of the petitioner stood rejected as back as in the year 1968. Mere repetition of representation in the facts of this case could not be taken as sufficient to explain the delay. vide State of Orissa v. Shri Pyorimohan Samantaray and others, AIR 1976 SC 2617 . Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, on the authority of Ramchandra Shankar Deodhar and others v. The State of Maharashtra and others (supra) urged that the petitioner could bring the writ petition even after great delay until rights of third party had intervened. vide State of Orissa v. Shri Pyorimohan Samantaray and others, AIR 1976 SC 2617 . Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, on the authority of Ramchandra Shankar Deodhar and others v. The State of Maharashtra and others (supra) urged that the petitioner could bring the writ petition even after great delay until rights of third party had intervened. This is one way of looking into the principle of laches. The general and primary rule is that the petitioner should come to invoke the extra-ordinary jurisdiction is respect of claims which are brought with delay without and sufficient reason. 10. As stated earlier the clam of the petitioner was rejected by the Khudkasht Commissioner that no additional `murabba' will be available to him, as back as in 1968. There was, therefore, no valid justification for the petitioner to come with an inordinate delay. The petitioner, in my opinion, has failed to satisfactorily explain the delay in respect of his prayer for allotment of one additional `murabba' and, therefore, his petition qua the allotment of the additional `murabba' is not tenable. 11. The case relating to the allotment of 5 bighas' on permanent basis, however, stands on different footing. The petitioner had been agitating for the allotment of 5 more `bighas' and he was allotted the same, though on temporary basis. The Khudkasht Commissioner issued orders on September 16, 1967, to give possession of 5 more `bighas' to the petitioner and the petitioner has been given the possession of 5 `bighas' though' on a temporary basis. The relief for allotment of 5 `bighas' on permanent basis cannot, therefore, be taken to be a stale claim so as to disallow it on the ground of laches. The preliminary objection so far it relates to permanent allotment of 5 `bighas' of land, has no substance in it and is over ruled. 12. I now, proceed to consider on merits the case of the petitioner qua the alleged permanent allotment of 5 `bighas'. The Khudkasht Commissioner by his order dated December 23, 1965, had issued direction for permanent allotment of 25 `bighas' of land to the petitioner. It was, therefore, not within the competence of the Deputy Colonization Commissioner to vary the order of the Khudkasht Commissioner, who was a competent authority in the matter of allotment of Khudkasht land under the Jagir Resumption Act. It was, therefore, not within the competence of the Deputy Colonization Commissioner to vary the order of the Khudkasht Commissioner, who was a competent authority in the matter of allotment of Khudkasht land under the Jagir Resumption Act. The Deputy Commissioner was bound to implement the order of the Khudkasht Commissioner dated December 23, 1965 by handing over the possession of 25 bighas' of land. The action of the Deputy Colonization Commissioner was not in accordance with law when he partially implemented the order of the Khudkasht Commissioner dated December 23, 1965 by allotting merely 20 bighas' of land. This action of the Deputy- Colonization Commissioner was beyond his jurisdiction and is, therefore, not proper. It may be recalled that on further pursuing the matter the petitioner had been allowed 5 `bighas' more, but on temporary basis. Such an act cannot be sustained in law. The petitioner was at least entitled to permanent allotment of 25 bighas'. The order directing the allotment 5 bighas' on temporary basis, is, therefore, illegal. As stated earlier, the possession of 5 `bighas' has already been handed over to the petitioner and he is entitled to retain the possession on permanent basis and not on temporary basis only. 13. In the result the writ petitions are partly allowed. The claims of the petitioners in respect of allotment of Additional 'murabbas' that is, 25 bighas' more, are disallowed. It is, however, directed that the non-petitioners shall allot 5 bighas' of land, which has been allotted to each of the petitioners on temporary basis, on permanent basis and shall treat the allotment of 5 bighas' as permanent allotment for all purpose, from the date of handing over of its possession to each of the petitioners. 14. In the facts and circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs.Writ partly allowed. *******