JUDGMENT 1. - The appellant has filed this Special Appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance against the judgment of the learned Single Judge passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 207/1981 dated 21.2.1983 whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant-petitioner was dismissed. 2. The appellant-petitioner was allotted 25 bighas land in the Rajasthan Canal Project Area known as Chuck No. 9-GD Square No. 4/37, Tehsil Gharsana, District Sriganganagar, by the Allotting Authority under the Rajasthan Colonisation (Allotment and Sale of Government land in the Rajasthan Canal Colony Area) Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the `Colonisation Rules'). The petitioner after allotment, paid all the instalments. It appears that on some complaint the Allotting Authority issued a notice to the petitioner calling upon him to show cause as to why the allotment of the aforesaid land made in his favour be not cancelled under rule 21 of the said Rules. The appellant-petitioner submitted his reply to the notice. The Allotting Authority, however, by his order dated 28.1.1977 set aside the allotment of the above land.The appellant-petitioner preferred an appeal against the above order before the Revenue Appellate Authority which was also dismissed on 27.2.1979. The appellant-petitioner then preferred a revision petition against the above order before the Board of Revenue but it was also dismissed on 1.1.1981. The appellant-petitioner further preferred a Review Petition before the Board of Revenue but that was also dismissed on 22.5.1981. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant-petitioner filed a writ before this Court and it was also dismissed by the learned Single Judge by his order dated February 21, 1983. 3. The brief facts relevant for the disposal of this appeal are that, un-disputedly, the appellant-petitioner was allotted 25 bighas land in Chuck No. 2BB. The Allotting Authority found that while submitting an application for allotment of land, the appellant-petitioner stated that he was land-less whereas as a result of an enquiry, according to the Revenue record 41 bighas 18 biswas of land has been shown jointly in the name of the appellant and his brother Banta Singh. It was further found that the appellant sold 7 bighas and 14 biswas of land on 15.4.1967 to one Shravan Singh and another 7 bighas and 14 biswas of land to another Shravan Singh on 12.7.1967. He was, therefore, in possession of the remaining land. It was further found that the appellant sold 7 bighas and 14 biswas of land on 15.4.1967 to one Shravan Singh and another 7 bighas and 14 biswas of land to another Shravan Singh on 12.7.1967. He was, therefore, in possession of the remaining land. When the Allotting Authority made enquiry, it was further revealed that for obtaining allotment of land, the appellant-petitioner filed false/fabricated documents to prove that he was land-less. When an enquiry was made about genuineness of the documents and the documents as produced by the appellant-petitioner were compared with the originals from the Revenue record; it was found that the appellant-petitioner was guilty of fabricating the documents with the object of showing the fact that he was not having in his possession any land so that land may be allotted to him under the Colonisation Rules. The Allotting Authority, therefore, cancelled the allotment made in favour of the appellant-petitioner. 4. The findings given by the Allotting Authority was upheld by the Revenue Board in its order dated 1.1.81 and also by the learned Single Judge by the order impugned, dated 21.2.1983. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has contended that the finding was erroneous and was not based on the fact that the appellant was in possession of land on his own account. He submitted that father of the appellant has married two women. The appellant was born by his first wife. The petitioner has two brothers by his step-mother and the land stood in the name of his father and two step brothers.This fact was not appreciated by the learned Single Judge as well as the lower authorities. Hence, the appellant was entitled to allotment of land which was allotted to him. The suppression of material facts cannot be attributed to the appellant in view of the above position. It was also argued that even if it is held that the appellant had share in the land which stood in the name of his father and step brothers, still the appellant was short of maximum limit of land which can be allotted to him under the Colonisation Rules and the allotment in respect of the land which fell short of 25 bighas could not have been made. He has placed reliance on the following decisions in support of his contention : Makhan Singh v. State of Raj., 1992 (1) RLW 01 and Brijlal v. Board of Revenue, AIR 1994 SC 1128 . 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents supported the orders and judgment of learned Single Judge. It was pointed out that while hearing the appellant, the Revenue Appellate Authority took pains in order to ascertain the correct position of the revenue record and the statement of Office Kanoongo Shri Tara Singh was also recorded with reference to the entries found in the Jamabandi. Shri Tara Singh stated that in the Revenue record, the above land stood in the name of appellant and his brother Banta Singh and that the copy of the Jamabandi produced by the appellant is not in accordance with the official record. In other words, the copy of the Jamabandi produced by the appellant was found to be false. The Revenue Appellate Authority did not record any findings as to how the above discrepancy occurred by adverse inference against the appellant was drawn and he was found guilty of filing false record, furnishing false information or withholding material which resulted in substantial omission of relevant and important facts, while submitting application for allotment of the land. The Board of Revenue also referred to the application moved by the appellant on 28.1.1977 before the Assistant Commissioner, Colonisation, which was available at page 10 of his file; in which it was admitted that he has certain share in this land in Chuck No. 2-BB of which he was not aware when he made an application for allotment. This fact was mentioned by the Board of Revenue in its order dated 25.5.1981 while dismissing the Review Petition of the appellant.In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance on decision is Bishna Ram v. State of Rajasthan and Others, reported in 1993 WLR 789 wherein a Division Bench of this Court held that if the petitioner was holding some land and an application for allotment of further land was made,' it was the duty of such applicant to have disclosed the same in that application. If he conceals this important fact, the allotment of land made in his favour can be cancelled under rule 21 of the Colonisation Rules. 7. If he conceals this important fact, the allotment of land made in his favour can be cancelled under rule 21 of the Colonisation Rules. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the facts of Brij Lal's case (supra) are entirely different. In that case it was found that no proof was available that the allottee earlier procured temporary allotment by giving false declaration as to his age. The facts in Makhan Singh's case (supra) were also different in toto. In that case, when temporary cultivation lease was granted in favour of the applicant, he was not in possession of 3 bighas and 1.25 biswas of land and, therefore, the temporary cultivation lease granted would not be affected by the subsequent acquisition. It was further held that it was not a case of giving false information but only omission-to give some relevant information. Hence the provisions of Sections 11 and 14 of the Rajasthan Colonisation Act, 1954 were held not applicable to the facts of that case. 8. We have considered the rival contentions. It may be stated that there is a concurrent findings of fact of all the authorities below, that the appellant was in possession of land in Chuck No. 2-BB along with his brother and that fact was concealed by him. The Revenue Appellate Authority in order to determine the correct position of facts examined the Office kanoongo Shri Tara Singh and it was revealed that the copy of the Jamabandi produced by the appellant in support of his application to prove the fact that he was land-less, was found not in accordance with the official record of Jamabandi which was inspected by the Revenue Appellate Authority. This concurrent finding of facts cannot be said to be un-reasonable or perverse. It is based on record. The learned Single Judge, therefore, very correctly concurred with the findings of fact of the authorities below and dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant-petitioner. 9. The Board of Revenue also referred to the application filed by the appellant in which he admitted that he advertantly furnished false or wrong information. It is based on record. The learned Single Judge, therefore, very correctly concurred with the findings of fact of the authorities below and dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant-petitioner. 9. The Board of Revenue also referred to the application filed by the appellant in which he admitted that he advertantly furnished false or wrong information. The Division Bench of this Court in Bishna Ram's case (supra) has categorically held that if the appellant is found guilty of furnishing wrong information or concealing material facts while seeking allotment of land, penal provisions of rule 21 of the Colonisation Rules can be invoked and his allotment can be cancelled.The facts of the cases are squarely covered by decision in Bishna Ram's case (supra).The facts of Makhan Singh's case (supra) are also entirely different wherein learned Single Judge found that the petitioner acquired the land after allotment of temporary cultivation lease. It was, therefore, held that the petitioner was not guilty of giving false information but only of omission to give some relevant information. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, there is no force in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******