JUDGMENT 1. - Kala Singh was holding 50 bighas of land in chak no chak no. 4 BLS square no. 293/332 25 bighas and Square bighas. Out of 50 bighas of land of square no. 293/332 25 bighas was allotted to the petitioner's father by the respondent no. 3 vide order dated 18.6.1976 (Annex.1) under the Rajasthan Colonisation (Allotment and Sale of Government Land in Rajasthan Canal Colony Area) Rules, 1975 (for short the Rules.) Kala Singh had three major sons namely, Suhara Singh, Harnam Singh and Amar Singh. It was ordered that a separate form for that may be filed upto 29.6.76. The petitioner Harnam Singh was elder son of Kala Singh and Suhara Singh was younger to the petitioner and Amar Singh was third son. Kala Singh was living at that time with Suhara Singh. No information was given to Harman 4 B.L.M. now no. 291/332, 25 Singh by his father. On 29.6.76 Shri Suhara Singh filled up the form although in i that form name of Harman Singh was mentioned but without signature. He was not aware of the proceedings therefore he could not present himself on 29.6.76, J On that date authority passed the order and accepted the application of Suhara Singh only and ordered that application of the petitioner will not be accepted. Harnam Singh came to know about the proceedings, therefore, remained present with an application on 13.7.76 before the respondent no.3, but he refused to accept his application and considered the application of Suhara Singh under Rule 13(5) (b) of the Rules and allotted 19 bighas of land vide j order Annex. 3 of square no. 291/332 to Suhara Singh and 6 bighas land of killa no. 20-25 was declared surplus and resumed to the State, however, Harnam Singh continued to remain in the possession of that 6 bighas of land. Harnam Singh preferred appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority which was rejected on 6.7.90 (Annex.4). His revision was also dismissed by the Board of I Revenue on 11.3.1991 (Annex.5). Hence, Harnam Singh filed this petition ' before this court. During the pendency of this writ petition Harnam Singh died and, therefore, his legal representatives-present petitioners prosecuted this writ petition. 2. Harnam Singh preferred appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority which was rejected on 6.7.90 (Annex.4). His revision was also dismissed by the Board of I Revenue on 11.3.1991 (Annex.5). Hence, Harnam Singh filed this petition ' before this court. During the pendency of this writ petition Harnam Singh died and, therefore, his legal representatives-present petitioners prosecuted this writ petition. 2. Learned counsel Shri Sandhu for the petitioners relying upon the unreported judgment of Singh Bench of this Court (M.L. Joshi, as he then was) in case on Govind Ram v. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No, 669/76, decided on 28.10.1976 submitted that this petition is directly covered in favour of the petitioners as this Court in Govind Ram's case (supra) held that rule 13(5)(b) of the Rules, 1975 to be mandatory. Therefore, the orders at Annex.2 and 3 passed by the respondent no.3 are illegal and liable to be set aside as authority was bound to allot 25 bighas of land in three equal shares to all the three major sons of Kala Singh i.e. Harnam Singh, petitioner, responded nos. 4 and 5, Suhara Singh and Amar Singh, who are not party to this proceedings. He submitted that the respondent no.3 committed error in allot ting 19 bighas of land to Suhara Singh and remaining 6 bighas land in favour of the State. He further submitted that the appellate authority and the Revenue Board have clearly committed error in dismissing his appeal and revision by the impugned orders at Annex.4 and 5 respectively on the ground of finding of fad recorded by the authorities below. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned orders at Annex. 2, 3, 5 and 6 be set aside and the respondent no.3 be directed to reconsider its decision as per rule 13(5)(b) and allot 25 bighas of land in three equal shares to Suhara Singh and Amar Singh, who are not party to the proceedings and the present petitioners who are legal representatives of original petitioner Harnam Singh. Howevery, learned counsel Shri Kharla appearing for the respondent no.4 vehemently submitted that Govind Ram's case has no application to the facts of this case. Howevery, learned counsel Shri Kharla appearing for the respondent no.4 vehemently submitted that Govind Ram's case has no application to the facts of this case. That was a case of purchaser, In this case except Suhara Singh, respondent no.4 no one remained present; and therefore, the authority has rightly allotted 19 bighas of land in favour of Suhara Singh and remaining 6 bighas of land in favour of State. He, therefore, submitted that this petition be dismissed. Learned Govt. Advocate Shri Bhati submitted that 6 bighas of land has already resumed in favour of the State and that order cannot be varied by this Court in this writ petition. Rule 13(5)(b) of the Rules, 1975 reads as under - "(5) Subject to the availability of land, the Allotting Authority shall after consulting the Advisory Committee, make reservation-wise allotment of Government land to persons mentioned in the list referred til in sub-rule (4) out of the land entered in the list prepared under sub-rule (3) of rule 8. In doing so, except where any Government land has been reserved for any specific purpose or class of persons under sub-rules (2) to (4) of rule 6, the Allotting Authority shall act in the following manner, namely:- (a) xxxxxxxxxxx (b) If an adult son of a temporary cultivation lease holder is eligible for allotment of Government land under these Rules and after allotment of land of his father there remains any surplus land out of the land comprised in the temporary cultivation lease of the father, such surplus land may be allotted to the adult son to the extent to which he is eligible. In case, there are more than one such adult son, such surplus land shall be equally allotted between them as co-tenants. The remaining land to which such adult son may be eligible under these Rules will be allotted to him along with other eligible persons of the same priority to which he belongs and in the manner provided in clauses (c) and (d.)" 3. Rule 13(5)(b) clearly provides that in case there are more than one adult son surplus land shall be equally allotted between them as co-tenants. Rule 13(5)(b) clearly provides that in case there are more than one adult son surplus land shall be equally allotted between them as co-tenants. At this stage, Rule 13(4)' is also required to be considered, which reads as under : "13(4) : Separate reservation-wise list of eligible persons shall be prepared by the Allotting Authority in Form XI and shall be placed before the Advisory Committee at such meeting." Under Rule 13(4) the allotting authority was required to prepare a separate reservation-wise list of eligible persons in form XI and to place it before the Advisory Committee in the meeting. From the order at Annex. 1 it clearly appears that the same was passed in absence of Kala Singh father of Harnam Singh, Suhara Singh and Amar Singh and out of 50 bighas of land which was granted on temporary cultivation 25 bighas of command land was allotted to him and for remaining 25 bighas of land it was held that his three major sons; Suhara Singh, Amar Singh and Harnam Singh were entitled and, therefore, Kala Singh was asked to file their joint application form. The order at Annex.1 was therefore, passed clearly in accordance with the provisions of Rule 13(4) and rule 13(5)(b) of the Rules, 1975. But, it appears from the order Annex.2 that on the next date i.e. 29.6.76 only Suhara Singh remained present before the respondent no.3 and Harnam Singh was not present. It appears that the authority was annoyed therefore ordered that Harnam Singh will not be given an opportunity of presenting his application and issued identity card in favour of Suhara Singh and he was asked to produce the same on 13.7.1979 for verification with all other evidence in his favour on that date. It was also clarified that no further opportunity will be given to him. Harnam Singh original petitioner when came to know about it he presented himself before the respondent no.3 on 13:7.76 with an application, but the respondent no.3 refused to accept his application and passed the impugned order at Annex. 3 allotting 19 bighas of land to Suhara Singh[ and remaining 6 bighas of land to State Govt. 4. Ordinarily this Court is slow in interfering with the concurrent finding recorded by the courts below in exercise of its powers under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 3 allotting 19 bighas of land to Suhara Singh[ and remaining 6 bighas of land to State Govt. 4. Ordinarily this Court is slow in interfering with the concurrent finding recorded by the courts below in exercise of its powers under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. It interferes only when there is gross injustice done and the initial order suffers from the basic infirmities. It must be stated that by an order at Annex.l the authority has clearly held that all the three major sons of Kala Singh were entitled to the remaining 25 bighas of share which had to be distributed among them equally and they were asked to file joint form but no fault of the petitioner deceased Harnam Singh-original petitioner or his younger brother Amar Singh, who ,were not party to the proceedings from the beginning have been denied their just right by their father who did not inform about the order Annex.1 and sent his son Suhara Singh with whom he was staying. In the form only name of Suhara Singh and Harnam Singh were mentioned. Name of Amar Singh was not at all mentioned. The form did not bear the signature of Harnam Singh. Under the circumstances the authorities ought to have accepted the form presented by Suhara Singh only. The authorities ought to have issued notice to remaining brothers Harnam Singh and Amar Singh and only after service of notice the authorities could have passed the order. The submission of Mr. Khariia was that the father may not like to discriminate among his sons. But their case is an example where it clearly appears that when father Kala Singh has clearly tried to discriminate in favour of Suhara Singh with whom he was staying. The authority did not appreciate this and without application of I mind, in a haste, passed the orders at Annex.2 and 3. Hence, the impugned order at Annex. 2, 3, 5 and 6 are required to be set aside. 5. In view of the above discussion, this petition is allowed. The impugned orders at Annex. 2, 3, 5 and 6 are quashed and set aside. The respondent no. 3 is directed to reconsider its decision by issuing notice to the legal representatives of Harnam Singh-original petitioner, Suhara Singh, respondent No.4, and Amar Singh and allot 25 bighas of land in equal shares to them. The impugned orders at Annex. 2, 3, 5 and 6 are quashed and set aside. The respondent no. 3 is directed to reconsider its decision by issuing notice to the legal representatives of Harnam Singh-original petitioner, Suhara Singh, respondent No.4, and Amar Singh and allot 25 bighas of land in equal shares to them. The I authority shall do it within a period of six months from today.Writ Petition Allowed. *******