JUDGMENT 1. - By this petition the petitioner has challenged the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities cancelling allotment of land made in his favour under the Rajasthan Colonisation (Gang Canal Lands Permanent Allotment and Sale) Rules. 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1956 Rules"). 2. The facts giving rise to the petition stated briefly are as under. I I Bighas and 10 biswas of land was given on temporary allotment to the petitioner and after three years of this temporary lease the Petitioner applied for permanent allotment of this land under the 1956 Rules (This application was dated 13.5.1976). Reporting on this application the Patwari of the concerned village noted that the applicant had 10 bighas and 6 biswas of land and his father has 25 bighas of The Sub-Divisional Officer, Raisinghnagar after he-acing the parties rejected the application for permanent allotment on the ground that the petitioner is not a landless person as defined by the Rules. This was done by order dated 19.6.1976. Appeal against this order as dismissed as also the second appeal by the Board of Revenue. These orders are impugned in this petition. 3. Assailing the orders of the Revenue Authorities it was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the orders are unsustainable in law as they are wholly illegal, the authorities have exceeded the jurisdiction vested in them by law in rejecting the application of the petitioner for permanent allotment. It is contended that interpretation of law put by the authorities is unsustainable and incorrect. The allotment application of the petitioner was not liable, to be dismissed on this ground. It was also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned orders do not consider the provisions of law and the interpretation as dor;by the authorities is unsustainable. It would he worthwhile to note the necessary legal provisions in this regard for proper adjudication of. the matter. 4. The Rajasthan Colonisation (Gang Canal Lands Permanent Allotment and Sale) Rules 1956 are the Rules which govern the present petition. These Rules deal with permanent allotment of land irrigated by Gang Canal. Rule 2 of the Rules provides the interpretation clause. It defines 'land leis person' in Cl. the matter. 4. The Rajasthan Colonisation (Gang Canal Lands Permanent Allotment and Sale) Rules 1956 are the Rules which govern the present petition. These Rules deal with permanent allotment of land irrigated by Gang Canal. Rule 2 of the Rules provides the interpretation clause. It defines 'land leis person' in Cl. (2) of R. 2 as under : "(2) "land Iess person'' means a person who has been a resident of Rajasthan since before the 1st day of April, 1955 and is by profession a bona fide agriculturist or bona fide agricultural labourer and whose primary source of income is agriculture: Provided that such person neither holds any tenure land any where in excess of 15 bighas nor is a sub-tenant of any such land (in excess of 15 bighas) from which he is not, liable to ejectment under the provisions of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (Rajasthan Act 3 of 1955) or under any other law for the time being in force in the area in which the land is situated, nor is entitled for permanent allotment of 15 bighas or more land any where under any other rule, condition or law. Provided further that a released "Sagri" and certified by the Sub-Divisional Officer will be treated as landless person of that village. Explanation.-For the purpose of this proviso `Sagri' means the bonded labourer as defined in the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976 (Central Act 19 of 1976). Provided further that the following categories of persons shall not be deemed to be landless persons, namely: (a) an employee other than a casual or work charged employee of the Government or of a commercial or industrial establishment or concern, his wife and children dependent on him: (b) a person who has sold, or otherwise transferred the whole or part of the land held by or allotted to him other than land transferred to or acquired by the Government or statutory bodies, and thereby reduces the size of his holding to become a landless person." In order to be the landless person as defined in the Act it is, therefore, necessary that such person should he an agricultural labourer and should not he holder of land of more than 15 bighas. Rule 3 gives the eligibility conditions and R. 4 prescribes the extent of allotment. Rule 3 gives the eligibility conditions and R. 4 prescribes the extent of allotment. Rule 5 provides for the manner in which the application for allotment has to be made. Rule 6 provides for the manner of allotment, R. 7 provides for fixation of the price of allotment and the other incidental provisions are also made in the Rules. 5. The petitioner applied for permanent allotment under section 5 of these Rules. It is rejection of this application which is now under challenge. The rejection is made on the ground that the petitioner was not eligible for allotment as he was not a landless person as defined by R. 2(2) of the Rules. The cases considered by the authorities for this purpose has the effect of the petitioner owning 10 bighas of land and, his father owning 15 bighas of land, the authorities have committed several illegalities in rejecting the application of permanent allotment. The first error committed by the authorities is in holding that the petitioner not a landless person as defined by the Ales because he holds more than 15 bighas of land. This conclusion is reached by the authorities on certain illegal hypothesis which is impermissible in law. Admittedly the petitioner is owner of 10 bighas and 6 biswas of land and it is presumed that the petitioner is joint with his father and, therefore, has the share by birth in the lands owned by his father because of the presumption in Hindu Law when the family is presumed to be joint unless the contrary is proved. According to the revenue authorities since contrary was not proved by the petitioner he will he presumed to be joint with his father and will, therefore, have the share in the lands belonging to the father. This principle of Hindu Law cannot be imported in the Colonisation Rules for the purpose of ascertaining the holdings of a person seeking permanent allotment of land. Even if it is assumed that such provision can be read and considered for ascertaining the extent of land the authorities below have committed an apparent error in holding that the petitioner had more than 15 bighas of land. The Patwari in his report states that the petitioner possess 10 bighas and 6 biswas of land and his father possesses 25 highas of land. The Patwari in his report states that the petitioner possess 10 bighas and 6 biswas of land and his father possesses 25 highas of land. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Revenue, Raisinghnagar opined on the representation of the Tehsildar dated 2.5.1976 that the possible share of the petitioner in the land held by his father would he 4 Bighas and 5 Biswas. presuming, therefore, this share can he calculated as one which may go to the petitioner if and when the father partition it and further assuming that the father is joint with the son and this 25 bighas of land is joint family property. 6. Even if all these things are assumed the total holding of the petitioner would he 10 bighas 6 biswas held by him and 4 bighas and 5 biswas likely to be acquired by him on future partition which may or may not take place The total holding would he 14 bighas and I I biswas which is less than 15 Bighas, therefore. factually the petitioner is the landless person even if all these lands are taken into consideration. Consequently all the Revenue authorities have committed a basic error of law in rejecting the application of the petitioner for permanent allotment. Even on accepting the report of the Teshildar as it stands and the opinion of the Sub-Divisional Officer that the possible share of the petitioner in the father's property would he 4 bighas and 5 biswas, the total holding of the petitioner does not become 15 bighas of land. The orders are, therefore, unsustainable in law. 7. In the result the petitioner succeeds and is allowed. All the impugned orders of the Revenue Authorities are quashed. It is hereby directed that the S.D.O. (Revenue) Raisinghnagar shall reconsider the application of the petitioner for permanent allotment of land in the light of the observations made hereinabove. There will he no order as to costs.Petition allowed. *******