JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the appellants Mr. Vijay Bishnoi at length. 2. Perused the order impugned dated 13.5.1998 passed by the learned Single Judge. 3. The present Special Appeal has got a chequered history. The appellants before this Court have earlier filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1873/83 which was allowed on 8.4.1985. The grievance of the appellants in the aforesaid petition was that the allotment of the land in Khasra No. 214 was cancelled without giving them opportunity of hearing. It was held in the aforesaid writ petition that the Additional Collector has no jurisdiction to cancel the allotment of the land in dispute allotted to the petitioner-appellants on the basis of report of Tehsildar to the effect that the allotted land was in possession of one Kastoor Chand. The matter was remanded by the learned Single Judge with a direction to give opportunity of hearing to the petitioner-appellants before cancelling their allotment of 1980. 4. In pursuance of the order passed on 8.4.1985 by the learned Single Judge in above writ petition the matter was re-agitated before the Additional Collector, Barmer who vide his order dated 14.3.1988 addressed himself in accordance with the observations made by learned Single Judge in his order dated 8.4.1985 and came to the conclusion that it would not be equitable to allot the appellants a land which is disputed and is also in possession of a trespasser Kastoor Chand. However, looking to the vital interest of the appellants the Additional Collector upheld the validity of subsequent allotment of agricultural land to the appellants in the same village by his speaking order dated 14.3.1988 after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner-appellants. 5. Aggrieved against the order passed by Additional Collector, Barmer dated 14.3.1988 the appellants filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2801/88. The learned Single Judge after hearing learned counsel for the parties at length arrived at the conclusion that the order passed by Additional Collector, Barmer dated 14.3.1988 is equitable order and it does not require interference in writ jurisdiction. It is found by the learned Single Judge that the petitioner-appellants are being allotted cultivable land in lieu of their previous allotment of the disputed land for cultivation in the same village by State Government and the Government is so considerate that it is allotting vacant land to them which is free from dispute. 6. It is found by the learned Single Judge that the petitioner-appellants are being allotted cultivable land in lieu of their previous allotment of the disputed land for cultivation in the same village by State Government and the Government is so considerate that it is allotting vacant land to them which is free from dispute. 6. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order passed by the learned Single Judge on 13.5.1998 the appellants appealed before this Court under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949. 7. It is urged by learned counsel for the appellants Mr. Vijay Bishnoi that the order passed by Additional Collector dated 14.3.1988 is not in conformity with the directions given by learned Single judge on 8.4.1985 in the earlier writ petition Annex. 5. According to him the petitioner-appellants are in possession over the disputed land allotted to them. 8. We are not satisfied with the aforesaid argument of learned counsel for the appellants. Possession of appellants over the disputed land is not believable from the material available on record. As a matter of fact, the materials available on record such as extract of khasras lead towards an irresistible conclusion that Kastoor Chand was coming in possession over the disputed land since 1978 before his heirs and legal representatives were brought on record in his place before the Single Bench. 9. The learned counsel for the appellants then invited our attention towards several orders passed by Tehsildar, declaring Kastoor Chand to be trespasser under Section 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act. Various Annexures on record which are brought to our notice by learned counsel for the appellants indicate that Kastoor Chand was in possession over the disputed land during his life time and inspite of several proceedings of ejectment initiated against him by Tehsildar his possession was continuing. 10. In our opinion, looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the Additional Collector, Barmer has passed most equitable order on 14.3.1988 holding that the earlier allotment of disputed land in favour of the appellants would not be beneficial to them, therefore, in lieu of earlier allotment after cancelling it, fresh allotment made to them on 26.6.1980 vide Annex. 4 to the writ petition in the same village is most equitable and valid. 11. It is next contended by learned counsel for the appellants Mr. 4 to the writ petition in the same village is most equitable and valid. 11. It is next contended by learned counsel for the appellants Mr. Vijay Bishnoi that after remand by learned Single Judge in earlier writ petition No. 1873/83 the Additional Collector, Barmer has not given a positive finding regarding possession of Kastoor Chand over the disputed land. At the risk of repetition suffice it to observe that from perusal of record as well as from the order passed by Additional Collector dated 14.3.1988 it is proved to the hilt that Kastoor Chand was coming in possession over the disputed land since 1978 before his death during the pendency of the writ petition and an argument contrary to it is not acceptable to us. 12. It is next contended by learned counsel for the appellants that during pendency of the writ petition before learned Single Judge, Kastoor Chand expired and in his place his heirs and legal representatives were substituted in the array of respondents. It is urged by the learned counsel for the appellants that after death of Kastoor Chand, his adverse possession over the disputed land came to an end and there is no evidence on record that his legal representatives are in possession. 13. Suffice it to say in this regard that adverse possession of Kastoor Chand will be tagged to the possession of his heirs and legal representatives brought on record who had jural relationship with him. 14. The learned counsel for the appellants cited a decision rendered by Hon'ble Suprem Court in case of Brij Lal v. Board of Revenue & Ors., reported in AIR 1994 SC 1128 and invited our attention towards paragraph 5 of the aforesaid decision which is reproduced here in below:- "5. It is not disputed before us that the appellant is in cultivating (cultivator) possession of the land since 1970. It would be travesty of justice to dispossess the appellant from the land which he is nourishing for over a period of two decades." 15. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the present case we are of the view that the decision relied upon by learned counsel for the appellants is not applicable to the present case but oppositely it can be pressed into service against the appellants. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the present case we are of the view that the decision relied upon by learned counsel for the appellants is not applicable to the present case but oppositely it can be pressed into service against the appellants. In case of Brij Lal (supra) the land was indisputably found to be in cultivator possession of the allottee's since 1970 and they were further found to be nourishing it for over a period of two decades therefore it was held by their Lordships that it would be travesty of justice to dispossess the allottee's whereas in the present case it is established from the extract of Khasras and also from the judgment impugned dated 14.3.1988 passed by Additional Collector, Barmer that it is not the allottee's-appellants who are in possession over the disputed land but it is Kastoor Chand who was in possession of the disputed land before his heirs and legal representatives were brought on record before Single Bench of this Court during the pendency of the writ petition. 16. Before concluding our discussion in the present case we think it just and proper in the interest of Justice to direct respondent No. 1. The State of Rajasthan through Collector, Barmer and respondent No. 2 Additional Collector, Barmer to ensure delivery of vacant possession of the fresh allotment dated 26.6.1980 Annex. 4 in lieu of allotment cancelled to the petitioner-appellants without any further delay within reasonable time.With the aforesaid observation the instant Special Appeal is hereby dismissed in limine.Order accordingly. *******