Honble CHAUHAN, J. – In the instant petition, petitioner has challenged the impugned orders dated 22.5.82, 25.4.89 and 28.11.90 contained in Annex. 3, 5 and 7 respectively to the petition whereby the allotment of land to petitioner under the Rajasthan Colonisation (Allotment and Sale of Govt. Land in the Indira Gandhi Canal Colony Area) Rules,1975, hereinafter called ``Rules 1975, had been cance-lled and his revision and review had been rejected by the competent authorities. (2). The factual gamut of the case reveal that petitioner applied for permanent allotment of land under the pre existing rules as he was holding the said land on temporary basis and twenty five bighas of land was allotted to him vide order dt. 30.7.74. At the time of allotment, petitioner was working as a primary school teacherand was in Govt. Service. Petitioner was issued a show cause notice dated 19.2.79 as to why the allotment be not cancelled as he was not eligible for allotment. Petitioner replied to the said show cause notice on 25.2.79 and it appears that a subsequent notice dt. 4.6.80 was served upon the petitioner for cancellation of said allotment under Rule 22 (3) of the Rules 1975. Petitioner filed the reply to the saidnotice and after completing the formalities, respondent No. 3 vide his order dated 22.5.82 contained in Annex. 3 to the petition cancelled the said allotment. Being aggrieved, petitioner filed a revision against the said order dt. 22.5.82, which was dismissed by respondent No. 2 vide order dt. 25.4.89 contained in Annex. 5 to the petition. Petitioner preferred the review petition before the Board of Revenue whichtoo came to be dismissed vide order dt. 28.11.90 (Annex. 7). Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, petitioner has challenged the said impugned orders by filing the instant petition. (3). Heard S/Shri R.K. Singhal learned counsel for the petitioner and M.R. Singhvi learned counsel for the respondents. (4). It has been submitted on behalf of petitioner that R. 4 (4) of the Rules 1975 provides that even if allotment has been made in contravention of the Rules 1975, the concerned authority can give a chance to retain the land with the family, if there is an adult son of such lease holder, who is otherwise eligible for allotment of land under these rules. Petitioner has not raised this issue earlier in memorandum ofAppeal or Revision. Petitioner has not raised this issue earlier in memorandum ofAppeal or Revision. It is settled law that a party cannot take a new plea first time in the writ court, which requires investigation of facts. (5). In Ratanlal Sharma vs. Managing Committee (1), the Apex Court has observed as under : ``All point not raised before the Tribunal or Administrative authority may not be allowed to raise for the first time in writ jurisdiction, more so when the interference in the writ jurisdiction which is equitable and discretionary is not of- course a must. (6). The same view has been taken by the Apex Court in the cases of St. Arunachalam Pillai vs. Southern Roadways Ltd. and Anr. (2), A.M. Allison vs. Stateof Assam (3), Cantonment Board Ambala vs. Pyarelal (4), State of U.P. vs. Dr. Anupam Gupta (5), Bhanwarlal vs. T.K.A. Abdul Karim (6) and Rajeshwari Amma vs. Joseph (7). Whether the son of petition was eligible to be considered for allotment of the said land under Rule 4 (4) of the said Rules is a question which requires investigation of facts and, thus, he cannot be permitted to raise this issuefirst time in the writ petition. (7). It has been canvassed by Shri Singhal that the finding arrived-at by respondent No. 3 that petitioner was not a bonafide agriculturist and his main source of income was not agriculture, is contrary to law and facts on record. It is further urged that petitioner has been in possession of the land in dispute for more than two decades and, thus, there can be no justification in uprooting him from the said land particularly in view of the fact that petitioner has retired from service and there has been no bar prior to 1982, amendment for allotting the land to the Govt. servants. Rule 2 (xiii) of the Rules 1975, which describes the landless person. The same is reproduced hereunder : ``2 (xiii) Landless Person means a person who- (i) is a resident of Rajasthan, and (ii) has been by profession a bona fide agriculturist or a bonafide agricultural labourer having agriculture as a primary source of the income and who either does not hold any land any where in India or holds land less than 25 bighas, but it does not include temporary cultivation land holder ..... (8). Vide notification dt. (8). Vide notification dt. 11.1.1983, the said rule was amended further with the following additions : ``Provided further that the following categories of person shall not be deemed to be landless person, namely :– (a) an employee other than a casual or work charged employee of the Govt. or of a commercial or industrial establishment or concern, his wife and children dependent on him. Rule 5 of the Rules 1975 reads as under : ``R.5 Eligibility and Extent of Allotment : (1) The following person shall be eligible for allotment of Govt. land for agricultural purposes under these rules namely : (i) X X X Landless persons, and (iii) X X X (2) Each such person may be allotted Govt. land upto 25 bighas (6.32 hectares)...... (9). It has vehemently been canvassed by Shri Singhal that upto 1982, there had been no bar on allotment of land to the person in Govt. service and petitionerdid not obtain the allotment by making any misrepresentation or playing fraud. Petitioner did not disclose that he was in Govt. service as he was neither asked to reveal so nor there was any particular form to be filled up for applying for allotment. However, Shri Singhvi contended that the land could be allotted to the Govt. servant prior to 1982 amendment provided he had been by profession a bonafide agricul-turist or a bonafide agricultural labourer having agriculture as a primary source of his income. In the instant case, these conditions stipulated in Rule 2 (xiii) were not fulfilled by the petitioner and, therefore, he was not entitled for the allotment. Moreover, there are findings of fact recorded by the statutory authorities to the effect that the petitioner was not eligible for allotment and the finding of fact cannotbe disturbed in a writ jurisdiction unless the same are perverse or based on no evidence. (10). In State of Gujarat vs. P. Raghav (8), the Apex Court has stressed on promptness of cancelling such allotment. If there is unreasonable delay in cancelling the allotment, it may cause much more damage to the allottee than it servesthe purpose of the society as a whole. The allottee might have spent his entire savings of life to improve the land. He could have developed the land by installing the tube wells etc. or improve the land by levelling it and by making it irrigated etc. The allottee might have spent his entire savings of life to improve the land. He could have developed the land by installing the tube wells etc. or improve the land by levelling it and by making it irrigated etc. In Brijlal vs. Board of Revenue & Ors. (9), the Apex Court has considered the case of cancellation of allotment under the same Rules. The Apex Court observed that where a temporary allotment has been made to a person and there has been no misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the allottee in getting such allotment and he retained the land for a long time, the court should not disturb such allotment. The said decision has been followed by the Division Bench of this Court in Sona Ram vs. State of Raj. and Ors. (10), wherein the allottee had joined the govt. service after the temporary allotment but definitely prior to the permanent allotment and the Division Bench took the view that as the temporary allotment had never beencancelled though it continued for years together and the allottees family remained in cultivatory possession of the land after joining the service by the petitioner, there could be no justification for cancelling the allotment. The Division Bench observed as under : `The allotment made in favour of the petitioner could not be cance- lled and it would amount to injustice to uproot him from the land which he has held for over 34 years now. The petitioner being a `landless person under the rules having been granted a temporary cultivation lease hold rights and as such being eligible for entitlement to permanent allotment of land on priority basis under the rules ha- ving been rightly allotted the said land, could not be said to have made any misstatement or concealment as projected by the learned Board and by the allotting authority while cancelling the allotment. (11). The present case falls within the four corners of the judgment of the Division Bench of this court in Sona Ram (supra). The Authorities below have recor-ded the finding of fact that petitioner never disclosed that he was in Govt. service and, thus, it amounted to misrepresentation. As the specific amendment has been made in 1982, to exclude the Govt. servants from the category of applicants, such a non disclosure may not amount to misrepresentation. The Authorities below have recor-ded the finding of fact that petitioner never disclosed that he was in Govt. service and, thus, it amounted to misrepresentation. As the specific amendment has been made in 1982, to exclude the Govt. servants from the category of applicants, such a non disclosure may not amount to misrepresentation. Petitioner being a temporary allottee was in cultivatory possession of the land. He may be justified to someextent to plead that he was dependent upon the agricultural income. Whatever, it may be, petitioner is in actual, physical and cultivatory possession of the land in dispute and the respondents took unreasonably long period to cancel the allotment in favour of petitioner. There cannot be any justification to uproot the petitioner from the land in dispute. (12). Thus, in view of the above, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders dated 22.5.82, 25.4.89 and 28.11.90 contained in Annexs. 3, 5 and 7 respectively to the petition are hereby quashed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.