JUDGMENT 1. - Petitioners Pat Ram and Bhagwana Ram were allotted 100 Bighas of Barani land of Khasra No. 466-Min. of Village Jhajhu, Tehsil Kolayat, District Bikaner, by the Tehsildar vide order dated 7.9.1963 under the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Land for Agricultural Purposes) Rules, 1957 (for short, 'the Rules, 1957'). On 15.5.74 the Khatedari rights with respect to this very land were conferred upon the petitioners and they became the Khatedar tenants of the land in question. After the petitioners became the Khatedar tenants of the land in question, one Har Lal filed a complaint before the Collector, Bikaner, challenging the allotment of the land made in favour of the petitioners. The learned Collector, Bikaner, exercising its powers under Sub-rule (4) of rule 14 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Land for Agricultural Purposes) Rules, 1970 (for short, 'the Rules, 1970') cancelled the allotment made in favour of the petitioners vide its order dated 3.9.1979. While cancelling the allotment made in favour of the petitioners, the Collector, Bikaner, observed that (i) while making the application for allotment of the land, the petitioners have wrongly shown their residence at village Vijaisinghpura whereas they are actually the residents of village Rasisar; (ii) the allotment has been obtained by the petitioners on the basis of the wrong information supplied by them to the Allotting Authority; (iii) the allotment has been made by the Tehsildar without consultation with the Advisory Committee; and (iv) the land has not been cultivated by the petitioners for a longer period after the same was allotted to them. The petitioners, being aggrieved of the order dated 3.9.79, passed by the Collector, Bikaner, cancelling the allotment of the land made in favour of the petitioners, preferred an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner, and the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner, vide its judgment dated 23.12.82, dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner-appellants. Dissatisfied with the judgment dated 23.12.82, passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan at Ajmer and the learned Member of the Board of Revenue, by its judgment dated 22.11.85, dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners. It is against this judgment dated 22.11.85, passed by the Board of Revenue that the petitioners have preferred this writ petition. 2. It is against this judgment dated 22.11.85, passed by the Board of Revenue that the petitioners have preferred this writ petition. 2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that (i) the allotment of the land was made in favour of the petitioners under the Rules of 1957, which could not have been cancelled by the Collector while exercising the powers under the Rules of 1970; (ii) there was no condition or priority in the allotment of the land relating to the residence of the persons provided in the Rules of 1957 and, therefore, no cancellation of the allotment could have been ordered on the basis of the residence of the petitioners; (iii) once the Khatedari rights have been accrued to the petitioners, the allotment could not have been cancelled under rule 14(4) of the Rules; (iv) the allotment was made in favour of the petitioners in the year 1963 and the cancellation has been made in the year 1979 after the lapse of about 16 years which could not have been made even if the wrong allotment of the land has been made in favour of the petitioners; and (v) the petitioners cultivated the land when there were rains and have not violated any of the conditions thereof and, therefore, the learned Collector, Bikaner, was not justified in cancelling the allotment made in favour of the petitioners and, therefore, the order, passed by the learned Collector cancelling the allotment and the orders passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority and the Board of Revenue affirming this order, deserve to be quashed and set-aside. The learned Deputy Government Advocate, on the other hand, has supported the orders passed by the Collector as well as the Revenue Appellate Authority and the Board of Revenue and submitted that the petitioners have violated the conditions of allotment and obtained the allotment in their favour by showing them the residents of village Vijaisinghpura whereas actually they are the residents of village Rasisar and the Collector has powers under Sub-rule (4) of rule 14 of the Rules, 1970 to cancel the allotment and the orders, passed by the Courts below, therefore, do not require any interference. 3. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 4. 3. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 4. The first contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the allotment of the land was made in favour of the petitioners under the Rules, 1957 which were superseded by the Rules, 1970 and the allotment made under the Rules, 1957 cannot be cancelled by the Collector while exercising its powers under the Rules of 1970. Sub-rule (4) of rule 14 of the Rules, 1970, authorises the Collector to cancel the allotment made by the Sub-Divisional Officer or the Tehsildar concerned under the Rules repealed by rule 21 of the Rules either suo moto or on the application of any person, in case the allotment has been secured through fraud or misrepresentation or has been made against the Rules or in case the allottee has committed any breach of any of the conditions of the Allotment. By rule 21, which is a repealing and saving rule, the Rule of 1957, as amended from time to time, were repealed with the proviso that the repeal shall not affect any order made, action taken, effects consequence of anything done or suffered thereunder or any right, title, privilege, obligations or liability acquired, accrued or incurred thereunder or enquiry, verification or proceedings in respect thereof made. 5. Sub-rule (4) of rule 14 of the Rules, 1970, therefore, specifically authorise the Collector to pass an order for the cancellation of the allotment if the allotment has been obtained by fraud or misrepresentation or it has been made against the Rules or the allottee has committed any breach of the conditions of Allotment. The Collector was, therefore, authorised under the Act to pass an order for cancellation of the allotment. But the question, which requires consideration is : whether any of the Conditions mentioned in Sub-rule (4) of rule 14 was available to the Collector for cancellation of the allotment made in favour of the petitioners; or whether the allotment of the land, in the present case, was obtained by the petitioners on the basis of any fraud or misrepresentation made by them or the allotment was made against any of the Rules ? Under the Rules of 1957, after the issuance of the Proclamation under rule 7 of the Rules of 1957, the applications were invited from the landless persons for allotment of land for agricultural purposes. Under the Rules of 1957, after the issuance of the Proclamation under rule 7 of the Rules of 1957, the applications were invited from the landless persons for allotment of land for agricultural purposes. The 'landless persons' have been defined in Section 2(iii) of the Act, which means the bona fide agriculturists by profession who cultivate or can reasonably be expected to cultivate the land personally but they do not hold any land either in their own names or in the name of any member of the joint family or they hold an area less than the prescribed area prescribed under rule 3 of the Rules. The petitioners, in pursuance to the issuance of the Proclamation under rule 7 of the Rules, being landless persons, applied for allotment of the land in Form III appended to the Rules. After receipt of the applications, the enquiry was made and the applications were considered by the Tehsildar and the allotment of hundred Bighas of Barani land for five years was made in favour of the petitioners by the Tehsildar. This allotment of the land was made under rule 13 of the Rules, 1957. The initial allotment under the Rules was made in favour of the petitioners on the ground of their being Gair-Khatedar tenants with a right to allotment by conferment of the Khatedari rights after the expirty of the period of ten years provided the allottee fulfils the requisite terms and conditions for allotment of the land. After the completion of the period of ten years, the Khatedari rights were conferred on the petitioners on 15.5.74. Conferment of the Khatedari rights under rule 14 of the Rules, thus, means that the allottee fulfilled, during this period of ten years, all the terms and conditions of allotment and has not violated any of the conditions of allotment. In any of the rules of the Rules, 1957 or in Form III, under which an application for allotment was made by the petitioners for allotment of unoccupied land for agricultural purposes, there was no condition of residence. In any of the rules of the Rules, 1957 or in Form III, under which an application for allotment was made by the petitioners for allotment of unoccupied land for agricultural purposes, there was no condition of residence. Form III in which the application was made, contains only three conditions, i.e., (i) the applicant should be a landless person within the meaning of Clause (iii) of Rule 2 of the Rules, 1957; and (ii) the applicants do not possess any agricultural land for cultivation either in their own names or in the name of any of the members of their family; and (iii) that the applicant requires the land for personal cultivation. There was, therefore, no such condition of residence provided under the Rules, 1957 for allotment of the land, and, therefore, neither misrepresentation nor fraud has been committed by the petitioners in getting the allotment made in their favour. The cancellation of the allotment can be made by the Collector under Sub-rule (4) of Rule 14 of the Rules, 1970 only if the allotment has been made against the Rules. The 'Rules' here means the Rules, 1957 under which the allotment of the land was made and not the Rules, 1970. The allotment has been made in favour of the petitioners under rule 13 of the Rules, 1957 and not under the Rules, 1970. 6. The next question, which requires consideration, is : whether the allotment in favour of the petitioners has been made against the Rules of 1957 ? The Collector, Bikaner, cancelled the allotment made in favour of the petitioners on the basis that the allotment has been obtained by the petitioners on the basis of the fraud or misrepresentation committed by the petitioners upon the Tehsildar and the allotment was made by the Tehsildar without any consultation with the Advisory Committee. Neither any misrepresentation nor any fraud has been committed by the petitioners as the Rules, 1957 nowhere provide that the allotment can be made to the person who is a resident of the concerned tehsil. Now, so far as the compliance of rule 13 of the Rules, 1957 is concerned, there is nothing on record to show that the allotment was not made to the petitioners by the Tehsildar without consultation with the Advisory Committee. Now, so far as the compliance of rule 13 of the Rules, 1957 is concerned, there is nothing on record to show that the allotment was not made to the petitioners by the Tehsildar without consultation with the Advisory Committee. The normal presumption is that while making the allotment, the procedure provided under the Rules, has been followed and the allotment has been made in accordance with law. 7. In Brij Lal v. The Board of Revenue and Ors., AIR 1994 SC 1128 , petitioner Brij Lal was allotted the land on temporary basis in the year, 1970. He applied for permanent allotment of this land but the application of the petitioner for permanent allotment was rejected by the Allotting Authority on the ground that the petitioner, at the time when the land was temporarily allotted to him, was minor and, therefore, the allotment of the land on temporary basis to the petitioner was contrary to the provisions of the Rules and, therefore, he is not entitled for permanent allotment of the land. The Apex Court, after considering the law on the point and contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties, held as under : "On the date when the appellant applied for permanent allotment he was holding the temporary allotment. If the appellant had procured temporary allotment by giving false declaration regarding age then proceedings for cancelling temporary allotment should have been undertaken. The temporary lease of the appellant was never cancelled. The appellant being "temporary cultivation lease-holder", permanent allotment could not be denied to him under the Rules. We are, therefore, of the view that the Authorities under the Rules and the High Court fell into patent error in rejecting the claim of the appellant for permanent allotment." The allotment of the land in favour of the petitioners, therefore, cannot be said contrary to the provisions of the Rules and the presumption is that the allotment was made in their favour in accordance with the procedure provided under the law. There is, therefore, no contravention of any Rules in the allotment of the land to the petitioners. 8. The next question which requires consideration, is : whether any violation of the conditions of Allotment has been made by the petitioners ? According to the learned Collector, Bikaner, the petitioners did not cultivate the land and, therefore, the allotment made in their favour was cancelled. 8. The next question which requires consideration, is : whether any violation of the conditions of Allotment has been made by the petitioners ? According to the learned Collector, Bikaner, the petitioners did not cultivate the land and, therefore, the allotment made in their favour was cancelled. The only condition, which is said to have been violated by the petitioners, is that they have not cultivated atleast 50% of the land during the years of allotment and the remaining area in the second year. The petitioners have placed on record the Khasra Girdwari showing the cultivation of the land by them. No reply has been filed on behalf of the State. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that there was draught for some years and, therefore, the land could not be cultivated. The land allotment to the petitioners was 'Barani' land and the cultivation on such land could have been possible only if there are rains. In the absence of adequate rains, the process of cultivation cannot be undertaken. Moreover, as per rule 14 of the Rules, the Khatedari rights can be conferred upon the allottees provided the allottee fulfil, during the period of ten years, the terms and conditions of allotment. After consideration of all the relevant factors, Khatedari rights were conferred upon the petitioners in the year 1974, which clearly show that the petitioners fulfilled all the conditions of allotment and no condition of allotment was violated by them and after the conferment of the Khatedari rights, the allotment made in favour of the petitioners cannot be cancelled on the ground that they violated the conditions of allotment, particularly when after applying its mind the concerned Authority came to the conclusion that during the period of ten years, all the conditions of allotment have been fulfilled and thereafter the Khatedari rights were conferred upon the petitioners. No condition of allotment has, thus, been violated by the petitioners and the learned Collector was not justified in cancelling the allotment made in favour of the petitioners. 9. Now it has to be seen : whether any order cancelling the allotment, can be passed after the lapse of sixteen years ? No condition of allotment has, thus, been violated by the petitioners and the learned Collector was not justified in cancelling the allotment made in favour of the petitioners. 9. Now it has to be seen : whether any order cancelling the allotment, can be passed after the lapse of sixteen years ? The allotment of the land was made in favour of the petitioners in the year 1963 and the possession was handed over to them and the petitioners remained in possession of the land for about sixteen years and the order of cancellation of the allotment has been passed by the Collector, Bikaner, after the lapse of about sixteen years. It is a settled position of law that where the power has been conferred upon an authority to effectuate a purpose then that has to be exercised in a reasonable manner and within reasonable time. After the lapse of about sixteen years, when the allotment was not obtained either on misrepresentation or fraud, the exercise of the powers by the Collector for cancellation of the allotment made in favour of the petitioners, was not justified. It has been held in : Mansa Ram v. S.P. Pathak and Ors., (1984) 1 S.C.C. 125 as under "Further, where power is conferred to effectuate a purpose, it has to be exercised in a reasonable manner and the reasonable exercise of power inheres, its exercise within a reasonable time. Though no limitation is prescribed for exercise of power under Clause 28 by the Collector, he should act within a reasonable time. This aspect must be present to the mind of House Allotment Officer before just rushing in on an unproved technical contravention brought to his notice contrived by the successor-in-interest of the deceased landlord, and evicting the appellant 22 years-after his entry and 9 years after his retirement on the short ground that his entry in the year 1954 was in contravention of Clause 22(2)." 10. In Mahendra Singh and Ann v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., 1989 (1) RLR 221 , it has been held by the Division Bench of this Court, as under : "It is well known that even if no time is fixed for the exercise of the statutory powers, the same must be exercised within a reasonable time. In Mahendra Singh and Ann v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., 1989 (1) RLR 221 , it has been held by the Division Bench of this Court, as under : "It is well known that even if no time is fixed for the exercise of the statutory powers, the same must be exercised within a reasonable time. If the resolution to enter into compromise was made in the year 1983, the powers under Section 300 of the Act, even assuming that it could be exercised, in this case, could have been exercised within reasonable time and not in the year 1988, i.e., after the lapse of five years." The Collector, Bikaner, has erred in law in cancelling the allotment of the land made in favour of the petitioners after the lapse of 16 years. 11. The next question, which requires consideration, is : whether the Collector has powers under rule 14(4) of the Rules, 1970 to cancel the allotment of the land made in favour of the petitioners after the conferment of the Khatedari rights in their favour ? The Khatedari rights conferred upon the tenant can be withdrawn only in accordance with the provisions of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 and the Collector has no power under rule 14(4) of the Act to cancel the allotment made in favour of the petitioners with respect to the land in which the Khatedari rights have already been conferred upon them because after the conferment of the Khatedari rights, the applicability of the Rules comes to an end. The powers under Sub-rule (4) of Rule 14 of the Rules, 1970 can be exercised by the Collector before conferment of the Khatedari rights and after the conferment of the Khatedari rights, the petitioners acquired all the rights for which they are entitled under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act and thereafter the provisions of Sub-rule (4) of Rule 14 of the Rules, 1970 has no application. The order, passed by the Collector, Bikaner, exercising its powers under Rule 14(4) of the Rules, 1970, is, therefore, without jurisdiction. The order passed by the learned Collector and the orders passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority and the Board of Revenue confirming the order passed by the Collector, therefore, deserve to be quashed and set-aside. 12. The order, passed by the Collector, Bikaner, exercising its powers under Rule 14(4) of the Rules, 1970, is, therefore, without jurisdiction. The order passed by the learned Collector and the orders passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority and the Board of Revenue confirming the order passed by the Collector, therefore, deserve to be quashed and set-aside. 12. In the result, the writ petition, filed by the petitioners, is allowed and the orders dated 22.11.85 (Annexure 5) passed by the Board of Revenue, the order dated 23.12.82 (Annexure 4) passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner, and the order dated 3.9.79, passed by the Collector, Bikaner, are quashed and set-aside.Writ accepted. *******