Honble B. PRASAD, J. – The present appeal is directed against the judgment of Learned Single Judge, dated 2.11.1982 whereby writ petition of the appellant was dismissed. The appellant in this appeal urges that the allotment made in favour of respondents No. 6 to 9 is contrary to the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Land for Agricultural Purposes ) Rules, 1970 hereinafter referred to for the sake of brevity and the Rules. (2) The main argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the order in favour of the respondent s No. 6 to 9 was liable to be set aside, by exercising powers u/s 14(4) of the Rules. According to the counsel for the appellant the allotment was against the Rules because the land allotted to the respondent Nos. 6 to 9 was not a land available for allotment in terms of R. 4 of the Rules. (3) To assess the merits of the arguments of the Learned Counsel for the appellant it would be in fitness of things if some facts are gone into.By an order dated 24.10.1975 of the S.D.O. the land was allotted to the respondents No. 6 to 9. On 18.11.1971 the said respondents were put into possession. Against this allotment an appeal could be filed by the aggrieved person u/s 75 of the Land Revenue Act but, no such appeal was preferred and instead an application was filed by the appellant u/R 14(4). This application of the appellant was allowed and the allotment in favour of respondents No. 6 to 9 was cancelled vide judgment dated 29. 12.1971 of the Additional Collector. An appeal was preferred by the respondents No. 6 to 9 before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Udaipur against this order. The Revenue Appellate Authority accepted the appeal and by an order dated 31.5.1973 the matter was remanded back for fresh consideration.The matter was again decided by the Additional collector, Bhilwara.By his order dated 17.6.1974 Additional Collector cancelled the allotment in favour of respondent No 6 to 9, holding that the land in question is of public utility and therefore, could not have been allotted. The respondents Nos. 6 to 9 preferred an appeal against this order of the Additional Collector before the Revenue Appellate Authority and the Revenue Appellate Authority accepted the appeal and remanded the matter back. The respondents Nos. 6 to 9 preferred an appeal against this order of the Additional Collector before the Revenue Appellate Authority and the Revenue Appellate Authority accepted the appeal and remanded the matter back. After remand the matter was heard by Collector, Bhilwara who vide his order dated 18.7.1978 came to the conclusion that the controversy in the matter circled around two points : (1) whether the appellants were entitled to allotment, being landless persons and (2) whether the landed in question came within the definition of public utility land. On both these counts the Collector found in favour of the respondents No. 6 to 9 . According to the Collector these persons came within the definition of landless per- sons because the land held by them was less than the prescribed limits. As regards the second question, that the land was a public utility land, the Collector came to the conclusion, that at the time when the land was allotted to these respondents, the land was entered in the records as Government land. There was nothing on the record to suggest that the land in question was of public utility character or have been so reserved for the said purpose. The petitioner has placed on record that in 1975 an order was passed to reserve parcels of land in question u/s 92 of the Land Revenue Act for public utility. But this order being subsequent to the order of allotment, the Collector rightly held that the day when the land was allotted, it was available for allotment and therefore the allotment could not have been cancelled. (4) Against this order we are informed that an appeal was preferred by the appellant and that appeal was dismissed in default. No attempt was made t o get the appeal restored. Curiously enough a review was preferred before the Collector. This review was objected to by the respondents,as being not maintainable. But this objection of the respondents was over-ruled. An appeal was preferred by the res- pondents No. 6 to9 before the Revenue Appellate Authority against this order and the Revenue Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the review was not maintainable and ordered that the further proceedings against the respondent be dropped. A revision was preferred by the appellant before the Board of Revenue and the revision was dismissed. A revision was preferred by the appellant before the Board of Revenue and the revision was dismissed. Against this dismissal the appellant filed a writ petition which was again dismissed by the order impugned. (5) At the time when the present appeal came for admission this was submitted by the counsel for the appellant that an appeal has been filed by the appellant and the appellant has availed of the right of appeal . The above referred facts clearly demonstrate that no appeal was preferred by appellant u/s 75 of Land Revenue Act. It was an application u/R 14(4) which was preferred by him. Therefore, the appellant had lacked in availing the appropriate remedy, against the order of allotment, in favour of respondents.Not only this, the powers u/ R. 14(4) could be exercised only when the allotment was against the Rules. Nothing was placed be- fore us as to in what manner the rule was infringed. The appellant has not been able to satisfy us on that point.The basic limb of the argument of the appellant is that the land being a public utility land and not available for allotment. We find from the record that in the year 1971 when the allotment was made, the land was recorded as Government land and therefore, it could not be said that the land was of public utility character on the day the allotment order was made. The order of 1975 reserving the land for public purpose would not affect the prior allotment of 1971 and, allotment was not made in violation of the Rules and powers u/R 14(4) could not be exercised to cancel the allotment. Therefore, on this count also the appeal is without any merit. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed and parties are left to bear their own costs. The End