JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred challenging the legality & validity of the allotment order dated 14.6.89 (Ann.7) passed by the S.D.O. Malpura in favour of respondent No.6 Ramesh Singh under the provisions of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment cf Land for Agricultural Purposes) Rules, 1970 (briefly 'Allotment Rules, 1970'), the judgment dated 24.11.95 (Ann.9) of the Revenue Appellate Authority, Tonk, whereby the appeal filed by allottee was allowed & the order of Additional Collector, Tonk passed u/R 14(4), cancelling the allotment order was quashed and allotment order (Ann.7) was restored and the judgment dated 18.4.96 (Ann.10) passed by the Revenue Board dismissing the second appeal filed by the petitioner on the ground that the same was legally not maintainable. 2. Now briefly the factual matrix. The S.D.O. Malpura in consultation with the advisory committee by his order dated 14.6.89 (Ann.7) allotted Siwai Chak land measuring 6 bighas 10 biswas comprising of khasra No. 556/2 situated in village Kutka in favour of respondent No.6. On 29.8.79 petitioner Guman Singh filed an application under rule 14(4) of the Allotment Rules, 1970 before the Additional Collector Tonk, challenging the impugned allotment of land on the ground that respondent No.6 was not a landless agriculturist, that on the other hand, he (petitioner) was in cultivator possession of the land in question since Samvat year 2020 and as such the said land was not an unoccupied land available for allotment and that no proclamation for inviting applications for allotment of land was issued by the S.D.O., as per provisions of the Allotment Rules, 1970. The petitioner prayed that the impugned allotment be cancelled. The Additional Collector by his order dated 25.10.89 (Ann.8) allowed that application holding that as per entries in Khasra Parivartasheel of Samvat year 2046, Madho Singh, the father of the petitioner was in possession of the said land since Samvat year 2020 to 2030, that thereafter the petitioner was in cultivatory possession thereof from 2031 to 2034, that the petitioner was a landless agriculturist and that without making an inquiry regarding regularisation of the petitioner's possession on the disputed land, the impugned allotment order in favour of the respondent No. 6 should not have been passed. He further held that the father of respondent No.6 was Khatedar of 18 bighas and 15 biswas of land including some Nahri lands, which for calculation purposes was equivalent to 25 bighas 8 biswas of land and respondent No. 6 being member of joint family was not a landless agriculturist. The Additional Collector, therefore, cancelled the impugned allotment under Rule 14(4). Aggrieved by the said order respondent No. 6 filed on appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Tonk, who by his order dated 24.11.95 (Ann.9) allowed the appeal and set aside the order (Ann.8) of the Additional Collector and affirmed the allotment order (Ann.7) on the ground that the petitioner did not file any application under R.20 for regularisation of his alleged possession of the disputed land, that the respondent No. 6 was not a member of joint family and living separately from his father, who had five sons and had 25 bighas 8 biswas land in his Khatedari, wherein the respondent No. 6 had ⅙notional share and, therefore, he was a landless agriculturist within the meaning of Section 5(26)(A) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. He further held that the petitioner's father Madho Singh was earlier allotted 4 bighas of land comprising of same khasra No. 556 by the Advisory Committee, but after his death, the petitioner sold the said land and that the petitioner was also not in continuous cultivatory possession of land in question. The petitioner filed second appeal against the order of the Revenue Appellate Authority under Section 76 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act before the Board of Revenue and the learned Member of the Board by his order dated 18.6.96 dismissed the same summarily on the ground that the said appeal was legally not maintainable. Hence this writ petition. 3. Reply has been filed on behalf of the respondent No. 6. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and carefully perused the relevant record in extenso. 5. Hence this writ petition. 3. Reply has been filed on behalf of the respondent No. 6. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and carefully perused the relevant record in extenso. 5. Shri R.S. Purohit has strenuously canvassed that the Revenue Board has wrongly interpreted the provisions of Section 76 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act and illegally exercised its jurisdiction vested in it; and that the order (Ann.8) passed by the Additional Collector is an original order against which the first appeal lay before the Revenue Appellate Authority and the second appeal was before the Board under Sections 75 & 76 of The Rajasthan Land Revenue Act respectively. According to him, since the petitioner was in continuous cultivatory possession of the deputed land, he was an aggrieved person and not an informer or the complainant. Therefore, the impugned order (Ann.10) of the Revenue Board deserves to be set aside. He placed reliance on the decision of Lallu v. State of Rajasthan, 1981 RRD (HC) 723 , wherein it has been held that the order under rule 14(4) of the Allotment Rules, 1970 is an original order against which first appeal is maintainable before the Revenue Appellate Authority and the second appeal before the Revenue Board. He also placed reliance on the decision in Megha Ram v. Board of Revenue, 1997 DNJ (Raj.) 761 , wherein relying on Lalluram's case (supra), it was held that an aggrieved person from the order passed u/r 14(4) of the Allotment Rules, 1970 had a legal right to file first and second appeal under section 75 & 76 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act before the Revenue Appellate Authority and Board of Revenue. Shri Purohit asserts that since the petitioner had filed application under R.14(4), he had the locus standi to file first appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority and second appeal was legally maintainable before the Board of Revenue. 6. Shri Purohit asserts that since the petitioner had filed application under R.14(4), he had the locus standi to file first appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority and second appeal was legally maintainable before the Board of Revenue. 6. On the other hand, Shri S.N. Pareek the learned counsel for the respondent No.6 has contended that in the instant case, proclamation under R.7 of the Allotment Rules was issued by the S.D.O. in accordance with provisions of the Allotment Rules, 1970, that admittedly, the petitioner did not apply under R.20 for regularisation of his alleged old possession on the disputed land before the SDO, and that he also did not prefer any appeal against the allotment order (Ann.7) and after expiry of the period of limitation submitted an application under R.14(4) before the Additional Collector, who illegally cancelled the allotment order vide his order (Ann.8). Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent No. 6 filed an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, which was allowed and the order (Ann.8) of the Additional Collector was quashed and the allotment order (Ann.7) was restored and affirmed. Since the petitioner did not avail his right of appeal against the allotment order Ann.7, he legally did not have any right to file second appeal, under section 76, Rajasthan Land Revenue Act against the order of the Revenue Appellate Authority and therefore, the learned Board of Revenue has rightly dismissed his appeal. He pointed out that the facts of Lallu Ram's case as also Magharam's case (supra) are dearly distinguishable and even in those cases, it has not been held that a person filing an application under R.14(4) has a locus standi to file second appeal under Section 76 of the Land Revenue Act. 7. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submission made at the Bar. 8. In Lallu Ram's case (supra), 8 bighas of land was allotted to each of the petitioners on 22.9.76 by the S.D.O. under the provisions of Allotment Rules, 1970. Those allotment orders were cancelled by the Additional Collector by order dated 27.12.77. 7. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submission made at the Bar. 8. In Lallu Ram's case (supra), 8 bighas of land was allotted to each of the petitioners on 22.9.76 by the S.D.O. under the provisions of Allotment Rules, 1970. Those allotment orders were cancelled by the Additional Collector by order dated 27.12.77. Aggrieved by the order of the Additional Collector, the allottees, who were aggrieved persons, went up in appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Jaipur, who rejected their appeals on the ground that the copies of the allotment order were not annexed with the memo of appeals, thus there was violation of Rule 30 of the Revenue Courts Manual Vol. II and held that those appeals were not maintainable. Against rejection of the appeals, the allottees filed second appeal before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue held that mandatory provisions of R.30 of the Revenue Courts Manual were offended, that it was a vital defect not capable of being rectified and rejected those appeals. The allottees thereafter filed writ petition before this Court, wherein the Division Bench of this Court concurring the reasonings given by the larger Bench of the Board of Revenue in Bajranga v. Badri, 1981 RRD 630 held that the order for cancellation of allotment under R.14(4) by the Additional Collector was an original order qua allottees, who were aggrieved persons, against which first appeals filed by them were maintainable before the Revenue Appellate Authority and second appeals before the Board of Revenue. In that case, since the Board of Revenue had not decided the appeals on merits, this Court set aside the order of Revenue Board and remitted back the matter to the Board for deciding the appeals on merits in accordance with law. I respectfully agree with this dictum of law, because an order cancelling the allotment of land under R.14(4) of the Allotment Rules, 1970 by the Collector is admittedly an original order qua the allottee against which first appeal lies before the Revenue Appellate Authority and the second appeal before the Board of Revenue under section 75 & 76 Rajasthan Land Revenue Act respectively. But the facts of Lallu's case (supra) are clearly distinguishable with the facts of the case at hand. But the facts of Lallu's case (supra) are clearly distinguishable with the facts of the case at hand. In that case, the allottees, whose allotment orders were cancelled by the Collector, were aggrieved persons and they had a right to file first appeal, which was dismissed by the Revenue Appellate Authority on the ground of maintainability and to file second appeal before the Board of Revenue. But in the instant case, undisputedly the petitioner did not file any appeal against the allotment order Ann.7 within the prescribed period of limitation. On the other hand, after expiry of the period of limitation he filed an application under R.14(4) of the Allotment Rules, 1970, on 29.8.89 against the allotment order (Anx.7) for its cancellation. Rule 14(4) proclaims that the Collector shall have powers to cancel any allotment made by the S.D.O. either suo moto or on the application of any person in case the allotment has been secured through fraud or misrepresentation or has been made against rules or in case the allottee has committed breach of any of the conditions of allotment. Thus, an application under R.14(4) can be filed by any person and it is not at all necessary that such a person should be an aggrieved person. Thus, the status of a person filing an application under R.14(4) is that of only a complainant or an informer. Moreover the Collector may also exercise powers suo moto and after necessary inquiry and affording an opportunity of hearing to the allottee, if he comes to the conclusion that the allotment has been secured through fraud or misrepresentation or has been made against the rules or the allottee has committed breach of any of the conditions of the allotment, then he has power to cancel such allotment. The moment of time, the Collector passes an order under R.14(4), the role of the informer or complainant goes in oblivion and comes to an end and then the dispute matter exists between the allottee and the State Government, who is the land holder. The moment of time, the Collector passes an order under R.14(4), the role of the informer or complainant goes in oblivion and comes to an end and then the dispute matter exists between the allottee and the State Government, who is the land holder. The complainant or informer, who has not availed of the opportunity to file an appeal against the allotment order within prescribed period of limitation for cancellation of allotment has no legal right and cannot press into service provisions of Sections 75 & 76 of the Land Revenue Act for filing first appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority and the second appeal before the Board of Revenue. In Lallu Lal's case (supra), the allottees were aggrieved persons. Therefore, in such circumstances, it was held by this Court that they had the right to file first appeal and second appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority and the Board of Revenue under Sections 75 & 76 of Rajasthan Land Revenue Act respectively. In Lallu Lal's case this Court did not decide that any person filing an application under Rule 14(4) is an aggrieved person and he has a right to file first appeal and second appeal against the order of the Collector. Therefore, Lallu Lal's case (supra) does not render any assistance to the petitioner. 9. In Magharam's case (supra), the writ petitioner & his sons were allotted 124 and 128 bighas of land respectively under the Allotment Rules, 1970, whereas the maximum limit for allotment was 75 bighas of land. Respondent No. 3 Krishnaram of the same village claiming himself to be a social worker made a complaint before the Collector under Rule 14(4) for cancellation of allotment, which was allowed and the allotment order was cancelled. Aggrieved by that, the allottee filed an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, which was dismissed and the second appeal before the Revenue Board, which was allowed and the matter was remanded to the Collector. This time the Collector after inquiry rejected the application filed by Krishnaram against which the latter preferred an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority which was partly allowed and it was held that the allottees were entitled to the allotment of 75 bighas of land only. Accordingly the allotment of the excess land was cancelled. This time the Collector after inquiry rejected the application filed by Krishnaram against which the latter preferred an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority which was partly allowed and it was held that the allottees were entitled to the allotment of 75 bighas of land only. Accordingly the allotment of the excess land was cancelled. Aggrieved by the order of the Revenue Appellate Authority, the allottees preferred second appeal before the Board or Revenue, which was dismissed, and their review petition was also dismissed. They filed writ petition before this Court. It was held that Krishnaram had locus stand to file an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority which had committed no illegality in partly allowing the appeal against the allottee. Besides that the learned Single Bench of this Court also held that this Court had to exercise its powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, under which it has a narrow and limited scope and that even error of law cannot be corrected by it in exercise of its powers under the said Article. It was further held that the Revenue Appellate Authority had rightly cancelled the allotment, which was made in excess of the maximum prescribed limit of 75 bighas of land. 10. But in the instant case, the Collector under R.14(4) set aside the order of allotment and the allottee-respondent preferred an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, which was allowed and the allotment order was affirmed. It is needless to mention that it is obligatory for the trespasser to file an application under R.20 of Allotment Rules for regularisation of his alleged old possession over the Government land before the Advisory Committee for consideration of his claim for regularisation. Since neither any application under R.20 of the petitioner was pending before the Advisory Committee on the date of allotment 14.6.89 nor the petitioner had filed any appeal against the allotment order, Anx.7, before the competent authority within the prescribed period of limitation, in my considered opinion, the petitioner was neither aggrieved person nor had any locus standi to file second appeal against the order of Revenue Appellate Authority before the Board of Revenue. The facts of Magharam's case are, therefore, at poles apart from the facts of the instant case and as such the said case does not come to the rescue of the petitioner. The facts of Magharam's case are, therefore, at poles apart from the facts of the instant case and as such the said case does not come to the rescue of the petitioner. Besides this in Keshu Ram v. Board of Revenue, 1996 RRD 616 a Division Bench of this Court has held that an application under R.14(4) of the Allotment Rules, 1970 is not an appeal under Section 75 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act. 11. On merits, Shri R.S. Purohit submitted that as per the entry in Khasra Girdawari and Khasra Parivartanshil (Annexures 1 to 6), Siwal Chak land comprising Khasra No. 556/2 measuring 7 bighas 10 biswas was continuously in cultivatory possession of Madho Singh father of the petitioner and after his death it was in possession of the petitioner Guman Singh since Samvat year 2031. But this argument is against the entries of Annexures 1 to 6. The entries in Khasra Girdawari of Smt. years 2022 and 2023 do not record possession of Madhosingh. His name was recorded only in remarks Col. 17. His name does not find mention in Cols. 27, 37 and 47 of Khasra girdawari. It is also an admitted fact that Madho Singh's possession on 4 bighas of land of Khasra No. 556/2 was earlier regularised. He subsequently sold the said land. Madho Singh was not in continuous cultivatory possession of the remaining three bighas of land of Khasra No. 556/2, which is the disputed land in this case. In Samvat years 2035, 2036, cultivatory possession of Ladu s/o Nanda Chama was recorded on the land in question. However, in Samvat years 2046 & 2047, Guman Singh's cultivatory possession was entered by Annexure 5, but in Samvat year 2048 possession of Ramesh Singh has been shown. Thus from entries of Khasra Girdawari and Khasra Parivartanshil Annexures 1 to 6, it is not borne out that the petitioner was in continuous cultivatory possession of the disputed land since Samvat year 2020. The possession of the petitioner was that of a trespasser. He even did not apply for regularisation of his possession u/r 20. 12. Thus from entries of Khasra Girdawari and Khasra Parivartanshil Annexures 1 to 6, it is not borne out that the petitioner was in continuous cultivatory possession of the disputed land since Samvat year 2020. The possession of the petitioner was that of a trespasser. He even did not apply for regularisation of his possession u/r 20. 12. There is not a fringe of evidence to show that provisions of R.5 of the Allotment Rules, which provide for preparation of list of "unoccupited lands" by the Tehsildar, and provisions of Rules 6 which deal with exclusion and reservations of the categories of land mentioned in R.4 from such list as also provisions of R.7, which provide for issuance of prociamation inviting application for allotment, were not complied with by the S.D.O. before passing the impugned order of allotment, Anx.7. The petitioner before the Additional Collector in proceedings under R.14 (4) also did not specifically point out as to how the proclamation issued by the S.D.O. under R.7 was not in accordance with Allotment Rules, 1970. Even no such contention was raised by the petitioner before the Revenue Appellate Authority, as is evident from a careful perusal of order dated 24.11.95 (Ann.9). Therefore, in this writ petition, the petitioner's contention that provisions of Rr.5, 6 & 7 of the Allotment Rules 1970 were not complied with, and that no proclamation was issued in accordance with the Rules, cannot be accepted. 13. There is no dispute that the petitioner did not file an application under R.20 for regularisation of his alleged old possession on the disputed land. Hence, there was no occasion for the Advisory Committee and the S.D.O. for considering the petitioner's case for regularisation under R.20. The Additional Collector, therefore, committed patent illegality in holding that the land in dispute could not have been allotted without considering the claim of the petitioner for regularisation of his alleged old possession over the land in dispute. 14. Next thrust of the argument advanced by Shri R.S. Purohit is that since the petitioner was in cultivatory possession of the disputed land on the date of allotment, it was not an 'unoccupied land' and as such it was not available for allotment. 14. Next thrust of the argument advanced by Shri R.S. Purohit is that since the petitioner was in cultivatory possession of the disputed land on the date of allotment, it was not an 'unoccupied land' and as such it was not available for allotment. This argument is misconceived and devoid of any substance and the same deserves to be summarily rejected because it is trite law that the Government land in possession of a trespasser is an 'unoccupied land' within the meaning of the Allotment Rules, 1970 and Section 5(36) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act and such a land is available for allotment to a landless agriculturist under the Allotment Rules, 1970. 15. In Qurban v. State of Rajasthan, 1979 WLN p. 730 it has been held by this Court that under R.20 of the Allotment Rules, 1970, there is no entitlement to the trespasser in his encroachment regularised as it is discretionary with the S.D.O. whether to regularise or not to regularise the unauthorised occupation. A trespasser cannot claim regularisation as a matter of right and as such, the petitioner cannot claim issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus. This Court further categorised four pre-requisite essential to the issue of the writ of mandamus namely, (1) whether the petitioner has a clear and specific legal right to the relief demanded by him ? (2) Whether there is a duty imposed by law on the respondent ? (3) Whether such duty is of an imperative ministerial character involving no judgment or direction on the part of the respondent, and (4) whether the petitioner has any remedy other than by way of mandamus for the enforcement of the right which has been denied to him. In that case, the petitioners who were allegedly in continuous cultivatory possession of the Government land did not challenge the allotment order by preferring an appeal before the Collector on the ground that the order for his dispossession should not have been passed. It was held that there was no good ground for invoking extraordinary jurisdiction vested in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the allotment order. In view of this on merits also, the petitioner does not have any case for seeking relief for quashing the impugned orders (Annexures 7, 9 & 10). 16. It was held that there was no good ground for invoking extraordinary jurisdiction vested in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the allotment order. In view of this on merits also, the petitioner does not have any case for seeking relief for quashing the impugned orders (Annexures 7, 9 & 10). 16. In my considered view, the Additional Collector has also committed a grave error in not taking into consideration the notional share of respondent No. 6 in the land held by his father, which for calculation purposes was 25 bighas 8 biswas. The petitioner had five brothers as such he had ⅕th notional share, which amounts to 4 bighas and 4.5 biswas only. Therefore, the respondent No. 6 was a landless agriculturist and eligible for the allotment of land. 17. No other point was pressed before me. 18. In the premise of the above discussion, this writ petition is without merit and the same is hereby dismissed with costs, which is quantified at Rs. 2,000/-.Petition dismissed with costs. *******