Honble GUPTA, J.–Ratan Singh, respondent no. 3, a resident of Kangra (Himachal Pradesh) was allotted 25 bighas of land in Chak No. 12K Murabba No. 345/444 in 1986 under the Rajasthan Colonisation (Allotment and Sale of Government Land to Pong Dam Oustees and Their Transferees in the Indira Gandhi Canal Colony Area), Rules, 1972 (for short the Pong Dam Rules). He transferred this land to the petitioner by way of agreement to sell dt. 17.4.89 for Rs. 2 lacs. Vide order dt. 27.5.92, the S.D.O. (Revenue) Raisinghnagar cancelled the allotment made in favour of respondent no. 3 and it was directed that the land shall vest in the State. (2). The State of Rajasthan made some amendments in the Pong Dam Rules, 1972. The amendments were challenged. The Apex Court in the case of Pradesh Pong Bandh Visthapit Samiti, Rajasthan vs. Union of India (1) quashed the notification dt. 12.3.92, amending the Pong Dam Rules substituting the period of 25 years for 20 years in the proviso to Rule 6(3) and also introducing new Rule 6A. Their lordships further directed the Chief Justice of this Court to nominate one or more District Judges to review the cancellation of allotment of oustees subsequent to 1.1.1992. In pursuance of these directions Special Judges were appointed. In respect of the disputed land notices were issued by the Special Judge to Ratan Singh, original allottee and Gurdeep Singh, the petitioner. The learned Special Judge held that Ratan Singh oustee allottee had committed breach of the conditions of allotment and therefore allotment made to him stood cancelled. He further held that Gurdeep Singh (petitioner) is a trespasser and therefore he should be dispossessed from the land. (3). The petitioners case is that the learned Special Judge has committed error in not giving effect to the agreement dt. 17.4.89 and he had no jurisdiction to consider the validity of agreement so executed by Ratan Singh. His further case is that the Special Judge had no jurisdiction to decide the matter finally as he had only the advisory functions. (4). Mr. Kalla contended that in view of the directions given in the judgment rendered in the case of Pradesh Pong Bandh Visthapit Samiti (supra) by the Apex Court the Special Judge was not empowered to decide the question as to whether the petitioner was a trespasser. (4). Mr. Kalla contended that in view of the directions given in the judgment rendered in the case of Pradesh Pong Bandh Visthapit Samiti (supra) by the Apex Court the Special Judge was not empowered to decide the question as to whether the petitioner was a trespasser. According to him the Special Judge could not given directions that the petitioner be dispossessed from the land and he could only send his report to the committee constituted by the Union of India and that committee was empowered to decide. (5). I have carefully gone through the judgment of the Supreme Court. It is profitable to read paras 26, 27 and 28 of the judgment hereunder :- ``26. The notification dated 12th March, 1992 amending the Rajasthan Colonisation (Allotment of Government Land to Pong Dam Oustees in the Indira Gandhi Canal Colony) Rules, 1972, and, consequently, the substitutio of 25 years for 20 years in the proviso to Rule 6(3) and the introduction of Rule 6-A are quashed and set aside. 27. The Chief Justice of the Rajasthan High Court shall nominate, within 6 weeks of receipt of a copy of this order, one or more District Judges for the purpose now set out. The notion of regularising the Rajasthan is in occupation of lands allotted to oustees saw the light of the day in 1992, shall be reviewed by District Judge. Notice that he shall be so doing shall be given to the oustee allottees concerned per- sonally, by registered post at the last known address and through the agency of the Himachal Pradesh Government. Public notice that all such cases are to be reviewed by the District Judge shall be published in two newspapers printed in the vernacular and having circulated in Himachal Pradesh, particularly in the Kangra region; also in two news- papers printed in Hindi and having circulation in Rajasthan, particularly in the Indira Gandhi Canal Colony area. Costs in regard to the individual and public notices shall be borne by the State of Rajasthan. For the purpose of such review the State of Rajasthan shall produce before the District Judge the entire record pertaining to each such allotment and cancellation. Even though the oustee allottee concerned may not appear, the District Judge shall review his case. Costs in regard to the individual and public notices shall be borne by the State of Rajasthan. For the purpose of such review the State of Rajasthan shall produce before the District Judge the entire record pertaining to each such allotment and cancellation. Even though the oustee allottee concerned may not appear, the District Judge shall review his case. Where the District Judge finds that an oustee allottee has committed a breach that invites the forfeiture of his land, he shall so record. Where the District Judge finds to the contrary, whether or not he ous- tee allottee appears, he shall so record. The District Judge shall also record, should he so find, that the oustee allottee was forced to leave the land because of lack of irrigation or other essential facilities such as water, roads, schools and medical assistance and/or because of coercion, intimidation or trespass. The District Judge shall send his reports to the committee now mentioned. The reports shall be binding upon the oustee allottees and the State of Rajasthan. The District Judge shall complete the task allotted to him as soon as is reasonably possible and, in any event, within 18 months or beginning it. 28. A committee shall be constituted by the Union of India (the 1st respondent) within 6 weeks of receipt of a copy of this order which shall have the Secretary, Ministry of Water Resources, Union of India, as its Chairman and the Secretaries of the appropriate Ministries in the State of Rajasthan and Himachal Pradesh as its members. The committee shall be responsible for the settlement in the command area of the Indira Gandhi Canal Colony in Rajasthan of all oustees who have secured certificates of eligibility in that behalf from the State of Himachal Pradesh, except those who, having been allotted land, have been found by the District Judge aforementioned to have forfeited it, provided that they were not forced to leave the land because of lack of irrigation or other essential facilities such as water, roads, schools and medical assistance and/or because of coercion, intimidation or trespass. Such land only shall rever to the State of Rajasthan and it shall be utilised for the purpose of allotment to ous- tees not yet settled. Such land only shall rever to the State of Rajasthan and it shall be utilised for the purpose of allotment to ous- tees not yet settled. The committee shall ensure that the recommendations of the District Judge are carried out and, where so recommended, the original oustee allottee shall be put back in possession of the land allotted to him. In the event that for some supervening reason this cannot be done, it shall be the obligation of the State of Rajasthan to make available an equivalent extent of irrigable land in the said command area for being allotted to him. The oustee allottee shall not be liable to make any additional payment in either event. Where, on re-settlement of oustees, additional monies have already been collected by the State of Rajasthan, they shall be refunded. The committee shall ensure that essential facilities such as water, roads, schools and dispensaries are available to the oustee allottees. The directions of the committee in regard to all matters entrusted by this order to it and all its consequential or incidental directions shall be binding on the State of Rajasthan. (6). The directions of the Supreme Court can be summarised as follows :- (i) The cases of all cancellations of allotment to oustee allottees subsequent to 1.1.92 shall be reviewed by the District Judge after giving notices to them. (ii) Where the District Judge finds that the oustee allottee has com- mitted a breach that invites the forfeiture of land, he shall record his finding to that effect. (iii) The Special Judge shall also record a finding as to whether the oustee allottee was forced to leave the land because of lack of irrigation or other essential facilities such as water, roads, schools and medical assistance and/or because of coercion, intimidation or trespass. (v) The Special Judge shall send his report to the committee to be constituted by the Union of India. (vi) The committee shall be responsible for the settlement in the command area of the Indira Gandhi Canal Colony in Rajasthan of all oustees who have secured certificates of eligibility in that behalf from the State of Himachal Pradesh except those who having been allotted land, have been found by the District Judge aforementioned to have forfeited it. (vi) The committee shall be responsible for the settlement in the command area of the Indira Gandhi Canal Colony in Rajasthan of all oustees who have secured certificates of eligibility in that behalf from the State of Himachal Pradesh except those who having been allotted land, have been found by the District Judge aforementioned to have forfeited it. (vii) Such land shall revert to the State of Rajasthan and it shall be utilised for the purpose of allotment to oustees not yet settled. (viii) The committee shall ensure that the recommendations of the District Judge are carried out and, where so recommended, the original oustee allottee shall be put back in possession of the land allotted to him. (7). Before we proceed further we may also go through some of the conditions of allotment as stated at para no. 4 of the judgment. (i) Initially an allotment shall be on ghair-khatedari tenure only and to the allottee no khatedari rights shall accrue in any land so allotted till the expiry of 20 years from the date of allotment and till the full price of the land together with all other dues of the State Government, if any, has been paid by him to the State Government. (ii) During the period of ghair khatedari tenure, allottee shall not have any alienable and transferable rights in the land and shall not transfer or alienate the land to any other person in any way e.g., by sale mortgage, gift, transfer, lease or otherwise. No transfer or alienation of land even in the form of Nokarnama, Muktiarnama, Tabliknama, Ikranama or the like shall be permissible. (iii) In case of any breach of any terms and conditions by the allottee the allotment of land made to him shall be liable to the cancelled by the allotting authority or by the Collector and the land shall revert to the State Government free from all encumbrances and without any liability of payment of compensation. (8). In the instant case, the learned Special Judge found that the oustee allottee Ratan Singh had transferred the land to the petitioner by way of agreement to sell and as such there was obvious breach of condition of the allotment. (8). In the instant case, the learned Special Judge found that the oustee allottee Ratan Singh had transferred the land to the petitioner by way of agreement to sell and as such there was obvious breach of condition of the allotment. It has been held that the allotment of land was liable to be cancelled by the allotting au- thority, and the learned S.D.O. had rightly cancelled the allotment of the land to the oustee allottee. (9). The petitioner, who is transferee, from the oustee allottee did not get any rights whatsoever by such transfer because the transfer was obviously in violation of the terms of allotment and, as such, void. The possession of the petitioner on the land is nothing more than that of a trespasser. (10). It cannot be accepted that the Special Judge had no jurisdiction to consider the validity of the agreement. It is significant to point out that the petitioner had earlier filed writ petition praying for allotting land to him under Rule 6A but his writ petition was dismissed by this Court which is evident by the facts stated in the order of the learned Special Judge. It is relevant to state that the judgment of the Apex Court protects the rights of the oustee allottees only. It does not protect the rights of the transferee by the oustee allottee in violation of the terms of the allotment. Therefore, the petitioner cannot challenge the directions given by the learned Special Judge. (11). The argument that the committee constituted by the Union of India is the final authority is misconceived. The observations made at para no. 28 clearly indicate that the committee is only the executing authority. It cannot sit over the judgment of the District Judge. It has not been directed in the judgment of the Apex Court that the District Judge shall refer the cases of trespassers to the committee. The functions of the committee is to ensure the settlement in the command area of the Indira Gandhi Canal Colony in Rajasthan of all oustees who have secured certificates of eligibility in that behalf from the State of Himachal Pradesh. When the allotment of land to the oustee allottee has been cancelled because of the breach of conditions of the agreement of allotment, the land becomes available for allotment to another oustees who have not yet been allotted land. When the allotment of land to the oustee allottee has been cancelled because of the breach of conditions of the agreement of allotment, the land becomes available for allotment to another oustees who have not yet been allotted land. It is the duty of the Committee to settle all oustees in the area. The Committee is not empowered to examine the correctness, or otherwise of the judgment of the Special Judge. (12). In my considered opinion, the petitioner has no case in his favour so as to invoke the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. (13). The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.