JUDGMENT 1. - The respondent No.1 Umrao was allotted khasra No. 153/200 measuring 2 Bighas and 14 Biswas and khasra No. 158 measuring 3 Bighas and 8 Biswas by allotment order dated 24.9.1975 under the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment for Agricultural Purposes) Rules, 1970 (hereinafter, referred as 'the Rules of 1970'). The petitioners have not challenged this allotment by filing an appeal and it is the petitioners' case that the petitioner No.1 Jagannath was allotted the land khasra No. 158 measuring 3 Bighas and 17 Biswas under the Rules of 1970. The allotment letter is dated 22.2.1977. The petitioners moved an application before the Additional Collector, Dausa for cancellation of the allotment issued in favour of the respondent No.1 on the ground that they are in possession of the land. In exercise of the powers under Rule 14(4) of the Rules of 1970, the Additional Collector, Dausa dismissed the petitioners application on 16.6.1985. The petitioners preferred an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Jaipur. The appeal was allowed and the allotment made in favour of Umrao dated 24.9.1975 was set aside. The respondents preferred revision petition before the Board of Revenue. It was held by the Board of Revenue that the appeal preferred before the Revenue Appellate Authority by the petitioners was not maintainable and the petitioners were not the aggrieved party and consequently set aside the order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority. 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Board of kevenue has committed an error in holding that the petitioners were not aggrieved persons and had no right to file an appeal. Rule 14(4) of the Rules of 1970 gives authority to the Collector suo-moto or on an application moved by any person to cancel the allotment made under the Rules if the allotment has been secured through fraud or misrepresentation or has been made against the Rules or in case the allottee has committed breach of any of the conditions of allotment. Thus, the power to cancel the allotment can be exercised by the Collector in exercise of the suo-moto powers or on an application moved by any person. Any person need not be an aggrieved person from the order of allotment, in the sense that he has some tangible right, title or interest in the land allotted. Thus, the power to cancel the allotment can be exercised by the Collector in exercise of the suo-moto powers or on an application moved by any person. Any person need not be an aggrieved person from the order of allotment, in the sense that he has some tangible right, title or interest in the land allotted. The person who does not have any interest in the land allotted can also move an application before the Collector under Rule 14(4) of the Rules of 1970 that the allotment requires cancellation because of the lad that it was secured by playing fraud or on the basis of misrepresentation or that it has been made contrary to the provisions of the Rules. The position of the person who moves the Collector is that of a complainant who moves the machinery of the Collector to exercise the powers under Rule 14(4) of the Rules of 1970. The person would not be aggrieved person-if the application moved by that person is rejected by the Collector. It would be another thing if the application is allowed and allotment order is set aside by the Collector, then, in that case, the person whose allotment order is cancelled will be an aggrieved party and can file appeal against the order of cancellation of allotment. Under the Land Revenue Act, 1956, an appeal is provided under section 75. The order of allotment made in favour of respondent dated 24.9.1975 could have been challenged by the petitioners under section 75 by filing an appeal taking recourse to Section 75 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 and there the petitioners, would have been aggrieved persons. Having not taken that course, the petitioners cannot be permitted to file an appeal against the rejection of their application under Rule 14(4) of the Rules of 1970. The order of the Board of Revenue does not require any intereference. The petition is dismissed.Petition Dismissed. *******