JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner, Manna Lal, has challenged the judgment of the learned Board of Revenue, Rajasthan Ajmer dated October 20, 1978 and August 30, 1979. The challenge to the aforesaid judgment primarily is on the ground that there is an error apparent on the face of record inasmuch as learned Board of Revenue has failed to take into consideration that so far as the petitioner is concerned, he had applied for allotment of only Khasra No. 583 measuring 11 bighas 5 biswas in village Doongarja Tehsil Digod (Kota) and the said khasra number was allotted to him. But lateron, erasures were made and instead of 11 bighas 5 biswas, khasra No. 289 measuring 8 bigha 1 biswa situated in village Kanwarpura, was allotted. The disputed land Khasra No. 583 Measuring 11 bighas 5 biswas situated in village Doongarja it appears, was earlier in the khatedari of one Sadashiv. Under chapter III-B of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (Old Ceiling law) the ceiling area of Sadashiv was determined and aforesaid Khasra number vested in the State Government being in excess of the ceiling area of Sadashiv. The Question of allotment was taken up in accordance with the provisions of Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Rules, 1973 (for short, the Rules). 2. Applications were invited and it appears from a perusal of Annr.1 that so far as the petitioner is concerned, he applied for allotment of 11 bighas 5 biswas and he categorically mentioned in the application filed by him under rule 10 of the Rules that he was landless person and there was no agricultural land in his name and the petitioner is an agricultural labour. It appears that the petitioner is Meghwal by caste and as such a person belonging to Scheduled Caste. Though, the application filed by the petitioner for allotment of any land is not available on record, but it can be said from a perusal of the endorsement on Annr. that earlier Khasra No. 583 measuring 11 bighas 5 biswa was allotted to the petitioner but it was struck off and instead an entry was made that khasra No. 289 may be allotted to him. The said order is dated August 7,1978. It will further appear from a perusal of Annr. that earlier Khasra No. 583 measuring 11 bighas 5 biswa was allotted to the petitioner but it was struck off and instead an entry was made that khasra No. 289 may be allotted to him. The said order is dated August 7,1978. It will further appear from a perusal of Annr. 2 which is available at page 18 that in the receipt earlier khasra No. 583 measuring 11 bighas 5 biswas was written and instead khasra No. 289 measuring 8 bighas 1 biswa was entered. It has not been explained as to how it has happened. At any rate it can be said that earlier the order of allotment of Khasra No. 583, measurring 11 bighas 5 biswas was made the petitioner had deposited the amount of Rs. 275/- as first instalment, a receipt was made for the aforesaid amount in which earlier khasra No. 583 was mentioned, but as said earlier, the words 583 Rakva 11 bighas 5 biswas' were scored out and instead the words 289 rakva 8 bighas 1 biswa' were mentioned. 3. Against the aforesaid order of allotment of khasra No. 583 measuring 11 bighas 5 biswas to the respondent No. 5 the petitioner filed an appeal before the Collector Kota and the Collector Kota under his judgment dated August 17, 1977 (Annr. 7) allowed the appeal, set aside the allotment in favour of the respondent No. 5. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order the respondent No. 5 filed an appeal before the Board of Revenue and learned Board of Revenue under its order dated October 20, 1978 allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Collector dated August 17,1977. 4. The allotment in favour of respondent No. 5 was challenged on two grounds, the first was that he is not a landless person and therefore, he was not entitled to any allotment and secondly in fact the Non petitioner was allotted khasra. No. 289 measuring 8 bighas 1 biswa but lateron it was changed by can ceiling the allotment in favour of khasra No. 583 measuring 11 bighas 5 biswas. Learned Collector took into consideration that the respondent No. 5 had 14 bighas agricultural land in his share and as per report of the Patwari dated September 4, 1976, he was also entered as sub-tenant and he was not a landless person. Learned Collector took into consideration that the respondent No. 5 had 14 bighas agricultural land in his share and as per report of the Patwari dated September 4, 1976, he was also entered as sub-tenant and he was not a landless person. The Collector also said that it appears from the receipt that the petitioner deposited a suit of Rs. 275/- for khasra No. 583 measuring 11 bighas 5 biswas but later on khasra No. 583 was scored and instead khasra No. 289 measuring 8 bighas 1 biswa was entered into, in its place. Dealing with the question as to whether Sadashiv in fact transferred khasra No. 583 to the respondent No. 5 as alleged by him, the learned Collector said that there was no registered sale deed in favour of the respondent No. 5 alleged to have been executed by Sadashiv. The learned Collector did not place reliance on the case of respondent No. 5. A perusal of the judgment of the Board of Revenue will show that all these aspects of the matter have not been examined by the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue did not examine the erasures etc which prima facie are there in the application filed for allotment by the petitioner which as said earlier clearly gives out that allotment of Khasra No. 583 was sought and the allotment was made and the petitioner deposited the amount. But the khasra No. 583 was scored and in its place khasra No. 289 was entered into. Learned Board of Revenue therefore, in our opinion erred in allowing the appeal and setting aside the order of the Collector. 5. A perusal of rule 17 will show that the land vesting in the State Government under Section 16 shall be allotted to landless persons in accordance with the provisions contained in rules 17 to 21 of the Rules. Landless person has not been defined in the rules but a perusal of rule 2 which is a definition rule will show that under clause-(d) thereof the words and expressions defined in the Act or in the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (Rajasthan Act 3 of 1955) or in the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (Rajasthan Act 15 of 1956) wherever used, therein be construed to have the meanings assigned to them by the Act or by the said Acts, as the case may be. 'Landless person' has been defined in Section 5 (26A) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 and under that Sub-section the expression 'landless person' shall mean an agriculturist by profession who cultivates or can reasonably be expected to cultivate land personally but who does not hold, whether in his own name or in the name of any member of his joint family, or holds a fragment. It will therefore be clear that only such a person can fall in the aforesaid expression of 'landless person' who does not hold any land either in his own name or in the name of any member of his joint family. A reference in this connection may be made to the reply filed by respondent No. 5 and a look at para 13 of the reply will show that the respondent No. 5 has clearly come out with the case and said that: "It is true that the land measuring 68 bigha and 10 biswa in village Doongarja of Tehsil Digod is of joint Khatedari with his brothers. His share comes to 14 bigha and 3 biswa only. The joint Khatedari land is cultivated by his brothers. There are 29-members in the family. It can be said that as per admission of the respondent No.5 contained in para 13 he has to his share 14 bighas 3 biswas of land in the joint property. Learned Collector in his order also came to the conclusion that the respondent No. 5 was a sub-tenant of 9 bighas land which was muafi land and which muafi has been resumed. Thus, the Collector was of the opinion that the respondent No. 5 was in possession of 23 bighas and 3 biswa land and he was entered as sub-tenant. There can be no dispute that the respondent No. 5 was having more than 14 bighas of agricultural land. 'Fragment' is defined in Section 5 (11-B) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 and the said expression shall mean a piece of land less in area than the minimum prescribed by the State Government for the purpose of sub-section (1) of Section 53. A perusal of the Rajasthan Tenancy (Government) Rules, 1955, more so, its rule 24-E will show that the minimum area for the purpose of subsection (1) of Section 53 has been prescribed as five acres. In case of class I irrigated land, such minimum area shall be 2.5 acres. A perusal of the Rajasthan Tenancy (Government) Rules, 1955, more so, its rule 24-E will show that the minimum area for the purpose of subsection (1) of Section 53 has been prescribed as five acres. In case of class I irrigated land, such minimum area shall be 2.5 acres. Thus, it can be said that the respondent No. 5 was not landless person within the meaning of aforesaid expression as contained in Section 5(26A) of the Tenancy Act and therefore, he was not entitled to allotment of land. If that be so a perusal of rules will show that the petitioner being a member of Scheduled Caste is entitled to allotment of land. 6. We are of the opinion that there is error apparent on the face of record of the judgment of the Board of Revenue. 7. Consequently, we allow the writ petition, set aside the judgment and orders dated October 20, 1978 and August 30, 1979 (Annr. 8 and 9) and restore the order of the Collector dated August 17,1977. Costs made easy.Writ Petition allowed. *******