JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition u/Arts. 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking quashment of the orders Annx. 6 & 7 dated 13.4.1993 & 22.3.1993 respectively. 2. It is averred that petitioner was allotted land measuring 3.02 hectares bearing Khasra No. 312/99, 357/99, on 16.7.1971 situate in village Ridmalsar Purohitan and he was in peaceful possession of it since then. On the application of the petitioner the S.D.M. Bikaner on dated 12.1.1972 directed the Tehsildar to record the petitioner as 'Khatedar' of the land but the authorities did not comply with the orders and therefore the petitioner again moved an application before the Settlement Officer, Bikaner to record him as Khatedar' and the Settlement Officer vide order dated 18.4.1991 directed the authorities to record him as 'Khatedar' of the land and an entry was made in the revenue record vide Anx. 5. The petitioner being busy, in out of station job, executed power of attorney in favour of Madan Puri on 28.5.1991 and since then he was cultivating the land and resided in a small 'Dhani' constructed on the land. It is averred that the Tehsildar, Revenue, Bikaner issued notice under Section 91 of the Land Revenue Act on 13.4.1993 to the attorney holder of the petitioner alleging that he was trespasser over the Government land and notice Anx. 7. 22.3.1993 was also received by Shri Madan Puri from U.I.T. Bikaner under Section 91(A) of the Urban Improvement Trust Act. The petitioner's case is that he was in peaceful possession of the land under the valid allotment and the respondents were adamant to dispossess him. It was prayed that the two notices received from Tehsildar (Revenue) and Urban Improvement Trust be quashed and the respondents be restrained from dispossessing the petitioner from the land. 3. Respondent No. 1 State of Rajasthan did not file reply. 4. Respondent No. 2 Urban Improvement Trust, Bikaner in its return resisted the writ petition on the grounds that the land which is said to have been allotted to the petitioner is the part of Johar Pytan land which could not be allotted to anyone and that the possession of the land was never given to the petitioner. It is further stated that the mutation made in the name of the petitioner was cancelled vide order dated 30.10.1992 Anx. R-2/1. It is further stated that the mutation made in the name of the petitioner was cancelled vide order dated 30.10.1992 Anx. R-2/1. It is further averred that the petitioner could have appeared before the authorities who served upon him the notices and as he failed to approach the authorities he cannot seek relief in this writ petition. The respondent's further case is that the petitioner has an alternative efficacious remedy of determination of rights over the land by way of filing suit before the Revenue Court and the writ petition is not maintainable. It is averred that the Assistant Settlement Officer had wrongfully passed the order to record the petitioner as 'Khatedar' for which enquiry has been initiated against him. It is denied that the Sub-Divisional Officer passed orders directing recording of 'Khatedar' rights in favour of the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner who was trespasser on the land has already been dispossessed and the land has been allotted to the forest departments who has taken possession of the land. 5. In the rejoinder filed by the petitioner the facts of the writ petition have been reiterated and it has been stated that the petitioner was dispossessed on 19.5.1993 after filing of the writ petition. 6. I have heard arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 7. Mr. Bishnoi contended that the petitioner was in peaceful possession of the land allotted to him and even Khatedari rights had been conferred on him and therefore the Tehsildar and the Improvement Trust had no right to issue the impugned notices to the petitioner. He canvassed that the petitioner had got title over the land therefore if the respondents wanted to dispossess him it could be done by obtaining a decree in a suit. Mr. Bishnoi relying on the case of State of Rajasthan v. Smt. Padmavati Devi, (1995) 5 JT (SC) 481 contended that the summary proceedings could not be taken in this matter as the petitioner had a bona fide claim of right to be in possession of the land. 8. Mr. Jain, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2, on the other hand, contended that the petitioner was never given possession of the land. 8. Mr. Jain, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2, on the other hand, contended that the petitioner was never given possession of the land. According to him the petitioner did not pay land revenue for all these years from 1971 to 1992 which shows that he was not in possession of the land. He pointed that the land in dispute is a part of 'Johar' (water pond) and therefore it could not be allotted to the petitioner. His further contention was that the petitioner did not care to reply to the notice given to him for two months and he failed to show cause against his dispossession. Mr. Jain contended that the ruling relied on by the counsel for the petitioner does not help the petitioner. 9. Mr. Singh, learned Dy..G.A. adopted the arguments of learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. 10. I have given the matter my anxious consideration. It has not been disputed that the land which was allotted to the petitioner vide order Anx. 2 was part of Johar' (pond). At the time of arguments it was also not disputed that land of water pond cannot be allotted under the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Land for Agricultural Purposes) Rules, 1970. Rule 4 envisages seven categories of lands which cannot be allotted for agricultural purposes. One category is the land mentioned in Section 16 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. Section 16 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act lays down that Khatedari rights shall not accrue to the 14 categories of the land mentioned in that Section. By virtue of the provisions of this Section, Khatedari rights cannot accrue in the land used for agriculture in the bed of tank or the land set apart for flow of water to any reservoir or tank. The land in the instant case has been shown in the revenue record as the land of pond (Talab) which is evident by Anx. 5. Therefore, there was obvious mistake on the part of the allotting authority when it allotted this land to the petitioner. 11. The petitioner's contention that the S.D.M. vide order dated 12.1.1972 had directed the Tahsildar to record the petitioner as 'Khatedar' is not acceptable. In the order dated 12.1.1972 the S.D.M. has only forwarded the application presented before him to the Tehsildar for necessary action. The order dated 12.1.1972 reads as follows : HINDI MATTER 499699 12. 11. The petitioner's contention that the S.D.M. vide order dated 12.1.1972 had directed the Tahsildar to record the petitioner as 'Khatedar' is not acceptable. In the order dated 12.1.1972 the S.D.M. has only forwarded the application presented before him to the Tehsildar for necessary action. The order dated 12.1.1972 reads as follows : HINDI MATTER 499699 12. This cannot be said to be the order of S.D.M. directing the Tehsildar to record the petitioner as 'Khatedar' of the lands. It is only an endorsement on the application by the S.D.O. to forward the same to the Tehsildar for necessary action. 13. Coming to the order Anx. 4 passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer on 18.4.1991, it may be stated that this order has been passed under the impression that the S.D.O. had already directed the Tehsildar to record the petitioner has 'Khatedar' of the land. Besides that the reply indicates that departmental enquiry as been initiated against the Assistant Settlement Officer for passing the order An. 4. The mutation Anx. R-2/1 filed along with the return indicates that the order mutating the petitioner as 'Khatedar' of the land has been cancelled by the order dated 30.10.1992 which was passed in case No. 22/92. It is well settled that mutation of property in the revenue record does not create or extinguish title nor has it any presumptive value on title : Vide Smt. Sawarni v. Smt. Inder Kaur, (1996) 7 JT (SC) 580 : AIR 1996 SC 2823 . As such the mutation entry in favour of the petitioner did not confer title to the petitioner. That entry has also cancelled. The petitioner has not filed any other revenue record to show that he been was recorded as 'Khatedar' of the land. The petitioner has also not filed any document showing that he had ever cultivated the land allotted to him or that he had deposited land revenue a of the land. It seems that the allotment of the land remained on paper and the petitioner did not take possession of the land in 1972 and he took possession sometimes before the notices were issued to him. 14. The petitioner was given notice Anx. 6 directing that he should hand over the possession of the land to the Government. The petitioner did not care to appear before the Tehsildar in pursuance of the notice Anx. 6 received by him on 13.4.1993. 14. The petitioner was given notice Anx. 6 directing that he should hand over the possession of the land to the Government. The petitioner did not care to appear before the Tehsildar in pursuance of the notice Anx. 6 received by him on 13.4.1993. Admittedly he has been dispossessed of the land in May, 1993. This Court cannot be justified in directing the respondents to hand over the possession of the land to the petitioner which could not be allotted to him under the Rules. Still if the petitioner thinks that he has some right over the land he can approach the competent Court for determination of his rights. As to the ruling cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it may be stated that in that case it was noticed that the petitioner had put forward a definite claim about her right to remain in occupation over the land and the said claim raised questions involving applicability and interpretation of various laws and documents as well as investigation into disputed questions of fact involving recording of evidence. In these circumstances, the Apex Court held that such matters could not be satisfactorily adjudicated in summary proceedings under Section 91 of the Land Revenue Act and can be more properly considered in regular proceedings in the appropriate forum. In the instant case the petitioner has already been dispossessed after giving him notice under Section 91 of the Land Revenue Act. He failed to appear before the authorities to put up his case. The land allotted to the petitioner could not be allotted under the Rules. The ruling does not help the petitioner. 15. Consequently, there is no merit in this writ petition which is hereby dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******