JUDGMENT 1. - By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the ; petitioner has challenged the legality of the ; orders Annexure/5 dated 27-4-1993 and Annexure/8 dated 26-7-1994 passed by the ; Addl. Collector, Barmer. 2. The brief facts leading to this writ petition are that one Mst. Chothi wife of Sone resident, of village Kama Tehsil Barmer had some agricultural land standing in her name. A part of that land was sold by her by executing three sale deeds in the month of November 1971. One of the sale deed was executed in favour : of the petitioner and his brother Punma Ram for 175 bighas and 10 biswas of the land bearing khasra No. 208. Ceiling proceedings were initiated against Mst. Chothi. The.above three sale deeds came under scrutiny and all the three sale deeds were not found to have been executed bonafidely and therefore, they were not recognised. 3. Incidentally the petitioner filed an : application for mutation on the basis of the ; above sale deed which was also rejected by the Sarpartch, Gram Panchayat Kama in the year 1973. The petitioner then filed a suit in the Court of the learned Additional Collector, Barmer for declaring him and his brother as (khatedar tenants of the said land. However, that suit was rejected vide order dated 24.3.1977. 4. Thereafter, the land acquired from Mst. Chothi was put under allotment under R. 17 of the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Rules, 1973 [for short 'the Rules'). Since the petitioner was a landless person, he also applied for the allotment to the said land in the year 1979.He also obtained due attestation from the . concerned patwari. The allotting committee ; accepted the recommendations for allotment made by the Patwari vide its order dated 12-5-1979. However, it appears that the above allotment caused heart burning to one Rama, who filed an application Annexure/3 dated 24-10-1991 before the Collector, Barmer seeking quashing of the allotment made in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner contested that application and submitted his reply Annexure/4 on 4-9-1992. 5. The Additional Collector on the application of Rama set aside the allotment made in favour of the petitioner vide order Annexure/5 dated 27.4.1993 while exercising his powers under P. 17(4) of the Rules. The petitioner contested that application and submitted his reply Annexure/4 on 4-9-1992. 5. The Additional Collector on the application of Rama set aside the allotment made in favour of the petitioner vide order Annexure/5 dated 27.4.1993 while exercising his powers under P. 17(4) of the Rules. The petitioner has contended that there is no provision for filing an appeal in respect of an order passed under R. 17 (4) of the Rules. Even Section 23 of the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973 also does not contain any provision tor appeal. Hence the petitioner has tiled this writ petition as aforesaid. 6. It has been contended by the petitioner that while allowing the objection of said Rama, the learned Addl. Collector held that the land measuring 175 bighas and 10 biswas stands in the name of the petitioner as per the Zamindari for the Samvat year 2043 to 2046 corresponding to the years 1986 to 1990. However, this mutation was recorded in the name of the petitioner in the year 1982 vide order Annexure/6 dated 27-12-1982. Thus, the above land did not stand in the name of the petitioner during the relevant year i.e. 1979 when the petitioner submitted an application for allotment of land under R. 17 of the Rules. Thus, the learned Addl. Collector has erred in assuming that the land stood in the name of the petitioner in the year 1971. The order Annexure/5 dated 27-4-1993 passed by the learned Addi. Collector stands vitiated. 7. According to the petitioner, R. 17[4] of the Rules was introduced for the first time in the Rules vide Amendment dated 13-3-1981. The land was allotted to the petitioner under R. 17 as it existed in the year 1979 and this rule did not contain a provision similar to the one contained in R. 17[4] and hence, the allotment under the provisions of R. 17 as it existed prior to 1981 could not be cancelled by the Addl. Collector in exercise of the provisions of R. 17 [4] of the Rules. Hence the Addl. Collector could not have cancelled the above allotment made under R. 17 of the Rules by exercising the powers conferred under R. 17 [4] of the Rules. 8. Collector in exercise of the provisions of R. 17 [4] of the Rules. Hence the Addl. Collector could not have cancelled the above allotment made under R. 17 of the Rules by exercising the powers conferred under R. 17 [4] of the Rules. 8. It was submitted that at the relevant time, the petitioner was a landless person and thus he was entitled to avail all the beneficial provisions contained in R. 17 of the Rules. It was also submitted by the petitioner that he preferred S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2755 of 1993 before this Court on 29-7-1993 and this Court was pleased to pass an order directing the petitioner to file an application for review in relation to the impugned order Annexure/5 dated 27-4-1993. The petitioner therefore filed a review petition before the Addl. Collector requesting him to consider his case in the light of the facts mentioned in the review petition. However, that review petition was rejected by the learned Addl. Collector vide his order Annexure/8 dated 26-7-1994 on the ground of limitation. 9. According to the petitioner, the learned Addl. Collector Barmer committed a grave error in not deciding the review petition moved by the petitioner because this Court specifically directed him to move such a application/petition. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Addl. Collector ought to have condoned the delay but that was not done. Hence the petitioner has filed this writ petition for the above reliefs. 10. A reply to the writ petition has been filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2. The respondents have raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the present writ petition on the ground that a logical determination of all the points raised by the petitioner would involve disputed questions of fact and in extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court, such disputed questions of facts could not have been gone into. Hence this writ petition deserves to be dismissed on this count. 11. It was also contended that it is wrong to contend that the petitioner was landless person when he made an application for allotment of land under R. 17 of the Rules. The existence of the safe deed executed for favour of the petitioner cannot be excluded from consideration while determining the character of the petitioner as to whether he was a landless person on the relevant date or not. The existence of the safe deed executed for favour of the petitioner cannot be excluded from consideration while determining the character of the petitioner as to whether he was a landless person on the relevant date or not. Thus the petitioner is guilty of suppressing material facts and on this count alone, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed. It was further submitted that R. 17[4] of the Rules applies to the present case. It was therefore, prayed that this writ petition may be dismissed with costs. 12. I have heard Mr. N. S. Acharaya, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. L. M. Lodha, the learned counsel for respondent No. 3 and Mr. S. K. Vyas, the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate and have very carefully gone through the record of the case. 13. Mr. Acharaya, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that R. 17[4] of the Rules under which respondent No. 3 Rama filed the complaint was not applicable to the instant case because in the year 1979 the land was allotted to the petitioner on the recommendations of the Advisory Committee. Sub-rule [4] of R. 17 of the Rules was inserted in the Rules vide Amendment dated 13-3-1981 and it is not retrospective in nature. Hence, the District Collector was not invested with the jurisdiction as envisaged in sub-rule [4] of R. 17 of the Rules. The learned Addl. District Collector, therefore, committed a grave error in entertaining and adjudicating the complaint filed by Rama. 14. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3 has submitted that a perusal of sub-rule [4] of R. 17 of the Rules would show that the Legislature has made it retrospective in nature because the District Collector has been invested with the power to cancel any allotment made at any time even under the Rajasthan Tenancy [Fixation of Ceiling on Land] [Govt.] Rules, 1963 or under the present Rules. 15. 15. For proper appreciation of the rival contentions, it would be convenient to quote the provisions of R. 17 [4] of the Rules in extenso : R. 17[4], The Collector shall have the power to cancel any allotment made, at any time, under the Rajasthan Tenancy [Fixation of Ceiling on Land] [Government] Rules, 1963 or under the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Rules, 1973 or under any other rules so far as the allotment relates to land acquired under laws relating to agricultural ceilings, either suo motu or on the application of any person, in case the allotment has been secured through fraud or misrepresentation, or has been made against rules, or in case the allottee has committed breach of any of the conditions of allotment. Provided that no such order to the prejudice of any person shall be passed without giving such person an opportunity of being heard." 16. While enacting this rule where the intention of the legislature was to bring within the purview of the jurisdiction of the Collector all the allotments which have been made under the Rajasthan Tenancy [Fixation of Ceiling on Land] (Government) Rules, 1963. This clearly shows that the intention of the legislature was to make this sub-rule retrospective in nature. 17. It is a cardinal principle of construction that every statute is prima facie prospective unless it is expressly or by necessary implication made to have retrospective operation. Close attention must be paid to the language of the statutory provision for determining the scope of the restrospectivity intended by the legislature. 18. Since the jurisdiction of the Collector has been made wide to embrace even the matters relating to the allotments made under Rajasthan Tenancy [Fixation of Ceiling on Land] [Govt.] Rules, 1963, no doubt can be raised that the Collector had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the complaint made by Rama regarding allotment made in favour of the petitioner on the recommendation of the Advisory Committee. 19. The second important argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order Annexure/5 dated 27-4-1993 passed by the learned Addl. Collector proceeds on a totally erroneous premise that the petitioner was recorded as a Khatedar tenant in respect of the allotted land in the year 1971. The fact is that the petitioner's name as Khatedar was muted for the first time in the year 1982. Collector proceeds on a totally erroneous premise that the petitioner was recorded as a Khatedar tenant in respect of the allotted land in the year 1971. The fact is that the petitioner's name as Khatedar was muted for the first time in the year 1982. In this connection, the learned counsel has referred to the history of the litigation pertaining to this land. The sale deed executed by Mst. Chothi in favour of the petitioner was not recognised in the ceiling proceedings taken against Mst. Chothi. Even feeling aggrieved by the non-recognition of the above transfer when the petitioner filed a suit in the Court of the learned Addl. Collector, Barmer for declaring him and his brother as Khatedar tenant in respect of the said land, the above suit was rejected by the Addl. Collector vide his order dated 24-3-1977. The petitioner again failed when he tried to seek mutation of the above land in his favour on the basis of the above sale deed. Thus, the petitioner lost the battle to secure his khatedari rights in respect of the above land. The Additional Collector, therefore, committed a serious error in cancelling the allotment made under R. 17 of the Rules on the ground that the petitioner was a Khatedar tenant in respect of the above land. 20. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents supported the impugned order of the Addl. Collector on the ground that since the sale deed was executed in favour of the petitioner and the same was not cancelled, the petitioner was held to have tenancy rights in respect of the above land. 21. After a careful perusal of the litigation that ensued in respect of the this land, it is clear that at no stage of the proceedings the petitioner was held to be entitled to khatedari rights in respect of the land transferred to him by Smt. Chothi through the sale deed. The above sale deed was not recognised in the ceiling proceedings. Thereafter all the challenges made by the petitioner were proved futile. Hence in my opinion, the Additional Collector ought not to have considered the land transferred by the above sale deed while considering the character of the petitioner as a landless agriculturist. The petitioner filed the application and disclosed the lands which were in his possession and in respect of which he had khatedari rights. Hence in my opinion, the Additional Collector ought not to have considered the land transferred by the above sale deed while considering the character of the petitioner as a landless agriculturist. The petitioner filed the application and disclosed the lands which were in his possession and in respect of which he had khatedari rights. He correctly excluded the land transferred by Smt. Chothi under the above sale deed. The Addl. Collector ought not to have considered the above land transferred by Mst. Chothi while deciding the complaint filed by Rama. The Addl. Collector has, therefore, passed the above order while taking wrong facts into consideration and thus the impugned Annexure/5 dated 27-4-1993 cannot be sustained. 22. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also made a grievance that the Addl. Collector, Barmer committed an error in dismissing the review petition filed by him as barred by time vide his order Annexure/8 dated 26-7-1994. It appears that the petitioner moved this review petition on the directions given by this Court on 29-7-1993. However, the above directions did not curtail the power of the Addl. District Magistrate to decide the review petition on merits. If he found the application filed by the petitioner to be barred by time, he had jurisdiction to decide the review petition that way therefore, find no substance in this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 23. For the above reasons, I accept this writ petition and set aside the order [Annexure/ 5] dated 27-4-1993 passed by the Additional Collector, Barmer and remand the matter to the Addl. Collector, Barmer to consider the matter again with reference to the provisions of R. 17 of the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Rules, 1973 and Section 2 [iii] [b] of the Rajasthan Land Revenue [Allotment of Land for Agricultural Purposes] Rules, 1970 by excluding from consideration the land sold to the petitioner by Smt. Chothi through registered sale deed dated 29-11 -1971 and to decide whether the allotment made in favour of the petitioner by the Advisory Committee as referred to above in accordance with law. Since the matter has become very old, the learned Addl. Collector, Barmer will decide the matter as expeditiously as possible. 24. There will be no order as to costs.Petition accepted. *******