JUDGMENT 1. - This is a writ petition filed by Maniram and Hajari Ram under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of an appropriate writ, direction or restraining the respondents from causing any interference with the cultivatory possession of the petitioners over squares Nos. 240 and 241 situated in village Thakri Tehsil Raisinghnagar & from dispossessing there from, and for causing the allotment of this land, if any, made in favour of respondents Nos. 3 and 4. The writ petition arises out of the following facts _ and circumstances: The petitioners were temporary tenants of 42 Bighas of land comprised in Khasra Nos. 240 and 241 of village Thakri since year 1951. They applied for permanent allotment of this land in the year 1959. Their application for permanent allotment was allowed in October, 1961 and the petitioners were directed to pay the price of the land in instalments. The petitioners paid the first instalment vide receipt Ex 1 and thereafter paid she second and third instalments on 2-7-1974 vide Ex.2 The rest of the instalments payable with respect to the lard upto the year 1977 were also paid by the petitioners vide receipt dated 19th July, 1977 marked Ex.3 As the instalments were not paid in time the Revenue Authorities charged interest from the petitioners which they paid vide receipt dated 19-7-1977. In this manner the petitioners became permanent allottees of the Barani land in question. Thereafter the Assistant Collector Raisinghnagar informed the petitioners at village Thakri that he would assist them in getting irrigated land in exchange for their Barani land and advised them to meet him at Raisinghnagar The petitioners appeared before the Assisant Collector Raisinghnagar in his office and applied for exchange of the lands at his instance, but later on the petitioners were neither informed as to what orders were passed on their application for exchange of lands nor were they given possession of irrigated lands in exchange of their Barani land. About a week prior to the filing of the writ petition, the petitioners were polishing their Barani land. Then Aduram son of Begaram Harijan resident of 11 TK came to the petitioners and asked them not to plough square No. 241 because it has been allotted to him by the Assistant Collector Raisinghnagar. About a week prior to the filing of the writ petition, the petitioners were polishing their Barani land. Then Aduram son of Begaram Harijan resident of 11 TK came to the petitioners and asked them not to plough square No. 241 because it has been allotted to him by the Assistant Collector Raisinghnagar. He also objected to the ploughing of square No. 240 also on the ground that the same has been allotted to one Mst. Surjeet Kaur wife of Jagirasingh Jat Sikh resident of village 11 TK. The petitioners, however, informed Aduram that the aforesaid two squares have been permanently allotted to them in the year 1971 and they have paid their price also. On the next day i.e. on or about 17th of August, 1978, Begaram again came to the petitioners along with the Police Constables and asked them not to cultivate squares Nos. 240 and 241. The Police Constables told the petitioners that they would arrest the latter if the possession of the land in question was not given to Begaram. Hajari petitioner No. 2 thereupon appeared before the Assistant Collector Raisinghnagar and requested him that he and Maniram should not be deprived of their right to cultivate the land in question but the Assistant Collector directed them to handover the possession of the land to Begaram and Surjeet Kaur as the land has been allotted to them on temporary basis. Hajari thereupon applied for obtaining copies of the order of allotment passed in favour of Aduram and Mst. Surjeet Kaur but his application was not accepted by the Assistant Collector. The petitioners later on came to know that Aduram is the son of Begaram M P. and the land has been allotted to him in Antodya programme by the Assistant Collector Raisinghnagar to please his father. The petitioner's contention, therefore, is that as they were permanent allottees of the disputed land, the Assistant Collector had no jurisdiction to allot their lands on temporary basis in the Antodya programme to Aduram and Mst. Surjeet Kaur Respondents Nos. 3 and 4 respectively without even giving a show cause notice to the petitioners. It was further urged that; the respondents have no right to dispossess the petitioners from their land otherwise than in due process of law. 2. The writ petition was admitted by this Court and notices were sent to Respondents Nos. Surjeet Kaur Respondents Nos. 3 and 4 respectively without even giving a show cause notice to the petitioners. It was further urged that; the respondents have no right to dispossess the petitioners from their land otherwise than in due process of law. 2. The writ petition was admitted by this Court and notices were sent to Respondents Nos. 1 to 4 A written reply to the writ petition was filed on behalf of Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 by the Government Advocate wherein it was stated that the petitioners were permanent allottees of the land in question but they surrendered the land to the Government and. therefore they ceased to be the allottees. It was denied that the Assistant Collector ever promised to the petitioners that he would assist them in getting irrigated land in exchange of their Barani land. According to Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 the petitioners themselves wanted irrigated land in the colony. Therefore, they suo moto voluntarily surrendered their land vide deed of surrender Ex P 1 and so the land after it was surrendered by the petitioners was allotted to Aduram Harijan and Mst. Surjeet Kaur vide orders dated 13-2-1978 marked Ex P 2 and Ex P 5. It was further denied that the petitioners are in possession of the land in dispute and that Aduram is the son of Begaram M.P and that the land was allotted to Aduram in order to please Begaram M.P. On behalf of the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 some additional pleas also were taken which are as follows: (1) The petitioners have voluntarily surrendered the land which vested in the State from the date of surrender and. r,o light, interest or title in the land subsists in favour of the petitioners. (2) The petitioners are not entitled to object to the allotment of the land in question to Aduram and Surjeetkaur because their rights in the land came to an end on the date when the land was surrendered to the State, The petitioners filed an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority against the orders of allotment of this land to Begaram and Sujeet Kaur and their appeal was decided by the appellate authority vide their judgment dated 30-11-1978. This fact has been suppressed by the petitioners in their writ petition and so they are not entitled to any relief from this Court. This fact has been suppressed by the petitioners in their writ petition and so they are not entitled to any relief from this Court. (3) The petitioners are in possession of 20 Bighas of Nahari land their possession as is evident from the order of the allotting authorities Ex 9 dated 22-10-1977 and so they are not entitled to get more land. The petitioners filed appeals against the order dated 22-10-1977 in the court of the Revenue Appellate Authority which was decided by the letter on 30-11-1977. This fact also has been deliberately suppressed by the petitioners for reasons best known so them and so on account of suppression of material facts they are disentitled to get any relief from this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction. 3. Aduram respondent No. 3 also filed a written reply wherein he denied all the allegations made against him by the petitioners in their writ petition and further pleaded (hat the petitioners voluntarily surrendered their land to the State and so they are not entitled to raise any objection to the allotment of the land that was subsequently made in his favour and in the favour of Mst. Surjeet Kaur. 4. I have carefully gone through the record of the writ petition and heard Mr. B L Purohit learned Counsel for the petitioners, Mr. H M Lodha, learned Counsel for respondents Nos. 3 and 4 and Mr. M D. Purohit Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 and 2. 5. Firstly it was argued on behalf of the petitioners that no land was given to the petitioners by respondents Nos. 1 & 2 in exchange for their land consisting of Khasras Nos. 240 and 241 although an assurance was given to them to this effect by the Assistant Collector Raisinghnagar respondent No. 2. The above contention appears to be devoid of force in view of the order of the Assistant Collector Raisinghnagar dated 22.10.1977 and the certified copy of which is no the record at page 47 and which reads as follows: HINDI MATTER 404534A From a bare perusal of the aforesaid order it is evident that II Bighas of Nahari land comprised in Khasra No. 217 of Chak No. 29 N.P. Tehsil Raisingh Nagar and 6 Bighas of Nahari land comprised in Murba No.255 were permanently allotted to the petitioners on their application. Eight Bighas of Nahari land belonging to their father was already in their possession- In this manner the petitioners got 25 Bighas of Nahari land in exchange for their land comprised in Murba Nos. 240 and 241 which they had voluntarily surrendered to the State as is evident from the certified copy of the surrender-deed dated 19.10.77 which is on the record at page 43 and which reads as follows: HINDI MATTER 404534B 6. The next contention put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the land in question was never surrendered to the land- holder i.e. the State of Rajasthan according to the provisions of section 55 of Rajasthan Tcnancy Act. It was further urged that the possession of the land vas not given up as the petitioners are still in continuous possession thereof. The above contention also is not well founded as is evident from the surren- der-deed quoted above in extenso After amendment of section 55 by section 14 of Rajasthan Act No. 46 of 1958 published in Rajasthan Gazette Part 4A Extraordinary dated 24.12-1958, only one mode of surrender of holdings is provided. The mode is that possession of the land must be given to the land-holder and the giving up of the possession must be accompanied with a writing duly attested by the Tehsildar having jurisdiction or Chairman of the Municipal Board. In the instant case compliance of the provisions of section 55 cf the Rajasthan Tenancy Act has been duly made and, therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that surrender in the present case is rendered invalid due to noncompliance of the imperative provisions of section 55 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act has no substance. The petitioners were holding land direct from the State and they could surrender their land to the State and in fact they have done so. The referred to above surrendertdeed dated 19.10-77 was executed by Maniram and Hajari petitioners and was attested by the Tehsildar Raisinghnagar. It is clearly written in the surrender. deed that possession of Murbas Nos. 240, 25 Bighas and 241, 25 Bighas has been given up by the petitioners and delivered to the Rajasthan Government. The referred to above surrendertdeed dated 19.10-77 was executed by Maniram and Hajari petitioners and was attested by the Tehsildar Raisinghnagar. It is clearly written in the surrender. deed that possession of Murbas Nos. 240, 25 Bighas and 241, 25 Bighas has been given up by the petitioners and delivered to the Rajasthan Government. The fact that the possession of these holdings w"s given up by the petitioners is proved by the entry made in the Ghatna Bahi, the copy of which is on the record at page 44 and which is marked Pradatsh D 2 in red ink. The entry reveals that the Patwari went to the spot and took possession of the vacant land comprised in Murbas Nos 240 and 241 from the petitioners in pursuance of an order of the Tehsildar No. 2753 dated 22-10-77 made on the basis of the surrender-deed executed by them in favour of the State. Hence the tenancy of the petitioners in Murbas Nos. 240 and 241 were extinguished after when they surrendered these hold- ings and gave up their possession to the State in accordance with the provi. sions of section 55 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. Clause (2) of section 63 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act clearly lays down that the interest of a tenant in his holding or a part thereof or as the case may be, strall be extinguished when he surrenders or abandons it in accordance with the provisions of this Act After extinction of their tenancies, the petitioners are not entitled to claim any interest in the holdings and the State Govt. to whom the holdings were surrendered by the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of Section 55 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, was authorised to allot those holdings to Aduram and Surjeet Kaur. In this view of the matter, the petitioners are disentitled to obtain any writ, direction or order for quashing the allotment of the surrendered lands made in favour of Respondents Nos. 3 and 4 by Respondent. Nos. 1 and 2 as the petitioners have given up possession of Murbas Nos. 240 and 241 and as the State has taken over their possession in pursuance of the deed of surrender executed by the petitioners and duly attested by the Tehsildar having jurisdiction, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief prayed for by them in this writ petition. 7. 240 and 241 and as the State has taken over their possession in pursuance of the deed of surrender executed by the petitioners and duly attested by the Tehsildar having jurisdiction, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief prayed for by them in this writ petition. 7. The result of the above discussion is that the writ petition filed by the petitioners has no force and is hereby dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs in the circumstances of the case.Writ dismissed. *******