JUDGMENT 1. - The matter has been called twice. It is 11.45 A.M. but none is present on behalf of the petitioner despite the name of Mr. Bhanwar Bagri, learned counsel for the petitioner having been duly notified in the cause list. This case was earlier listed on 18.2.1999 when the learned counsel for the petitioner requested for short adjournment when the learned Single Bench of this Court had directed to put up this matter after two weeks for admission. Thereafter, the matter was listed before another Bench on 2nd occasion on 26.3.1999, when again petitioner's counsel requested for adjournment and it was adjourned to be listed on 12.4.1999 as prayed. Thereafter, it was again listed for third occasion on 12.4.1999, when the petitioner's counsel was again not ready and as per his request, it was adjourned to 22.4.1999 and thereafter, on 26.7.1999 when similar request was again repeated before another Bench, when the matter was again adjourned for two weeks and thereafter on 10.8.1999 when it was again adjourned for next week for admission. In this manner, the petitioner's counsel has been seeking repeated adjournments in the past with no intention of arguing the brief and today again, none is present for the petitioner. Hence, the petition is being decided on merit at the admission stage itself. 2. The case of the petitioner in short is that the petitioner was allotted 5 Bighas of agriculture land bearing Khasra No. 29 in Village Mandoli, Tehsil Rupwas, District Bharatpur. It is averred in the petition that the said land was allotted to the petitioner on the recommendations of Allotment Committee on 10.11.1975 having resorted to the provisions of Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Land for Agriculture Purpose) Rules, 1970 for short "the Rules of 1970". It is further averred that the said land was Sawai Chuck and is vested with the State Government. 3. Objections to the aforesaid allotment were filed by way of Objection Petition by respondent Nos. 5 to 10 (private respondents) under Rule 14(4) of the Rules of 1970 before the Additional Collector Bharatpur challenging the allotment made in favour of the petitioner. The Additional Collector vide order dated 29.12.1976 dismissed the said objections and maintained the allotment order dated 10.11.1975 made in favour of the petitioner. 5 to 10 (private respondents) under Rule 14(4) of the Rules of 1970 before the Additional Collector Bharatpur challenging the allotment made in favour of the petitioner. The Additional Collector vide order dated 29.12.1976 dismissed the said objections and maintained the allotment order dated 10.11.1975 made in favour of the petitioner. Being aggrieved of the aforesaid order, respondents preferred an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bharatpur for short "the RAA" challenging the aforesaid order of the Additional Collector maintaining the allotment order dated 10.11.1975 made in favour of the petitioner. The RAA vide its' judgment dated 1.5.1978 cancelled the allotment which was made earlier in favour of the petitioner by the Additional Collector by the aforesaid impugned-order. Being aggrieved by the cancellation order of the RAA dated 1.5.1978, petitioner preferred a revision petition before the Board of Revenue, Ajmer for short "the BOR", who vide its' order dated 15.12.1998 admitted the revision petition but the petition is still pending adjudication as per the averments made in para 3 of the writ petition. It is further averred in the petition that after the decision of the RAA dated 1.5.1978, respondents moved an application under Section 144 CPC before the SDO Bayana for correction of entry in the revenue records. The SDO Bayana vide order dated 28.11.1985 dismissed the said application on the ground that relief claimed in the application can only be granted by the Court of first institution. Being aggrieved of the order dated 28.11.1985, respondents preferred an appeal before the RAA who vide judgment dated 31.10.1987 allowed the respondents' application filed under section 144 CPC. Meanwhile, Lakhi father of respondent Nos. 5 to 7, Jawahar-respondent No. 10 and others filed a revenue suit before the Additional Collector Bharatpur bearing Revenue Suit No. 474/1986 against the State Government under Sections 88 & 89 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 for short "the Act of 1955". The Additional Collector vide order dated 20.2.1990 decreed the suit. Meanwhile, Lakhi father of respondent Nos. 5 to 7, Jawahar-respondent No. 10 and others filed a revenue suit before the Additional Collector Bharatpur bearing Revenue Suit No. 474/1986 against the State Government under Sections 88 & 89 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 for short "the Act of 1955". The Additional Collector vide order dated 20.2.1990 decreed the suit. The petitioner has contended in this regard that the said suit was filed without impleading him as a party to the suit and when he became aware of the said decision, he preferred an appeal before the RAA on the grounds inter-alia that the land in dispute allotted to him was in his continuous possession since its allotment hence, respondents Lakhi and others who never acquired the possession of the said land, had no right to continue in their possession over the land in question. The RAA vide order dated 23.2.1993 dismissed the appeal holding that since the name of the petitioner had been directed to be struck of in the revenue records by the RAA itself vide its earlier order dated 31.10.1987 therefore, the suit remained in between the respondents and the State Government and hence, the petitioner having no locus-standi had no right or justification to agitate this issue and he was rightly not impleaded as a party to the suit filed by the respondents for declaring them as Khatedars of the disputed land. Being aggrieved of the order dated 23.2.1993 of the RAA, the petitioner preferred second appeal before the BOR which was decided on 6.8.1998 (Annexure-4 on the record). The BOR partly allowed the second appeal and quashed and set-aside the orders dated 20.2.1990 of Additional Collector Bharatpur as well as order dated 23.3.1993 of the RAA holding that respondent Nos. 5 to 10 are not entitled to be declared as Khatedas to the disputed land since the allotment made in favour of the petitioner stood cancelled vide order dated 1.5.1978 by the RAA therefore, the land in Khasra No. 29 automatically stood vested with the State Government and in the revenue records the said land should be recorded as Government land. 4. Now, being aggrieved of the aforesaid order of BOR dated 6.8.1998 (Annexure-4), the petitioner has come up before this Court by way of instant writ petition alleging that the BOR has erroneously held that the land in dispute is a Govt. 4. Now, being aggrieved of the aforesaid order of BOR dated 6.8.1998 (Annexure-4), the petitioner has come up before this Court by way of instant writ petition alleging that the BOR has erroneously held that the land in dispute is a Govt. land who passed the orders for correction in the revenue records on the strength of the order dated 1.5.1978 of the RAA particularly when, the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the said order is still pending before the BOR and, therefore, pending revision petition, the BOR could not have given directions vide order dated 6.8.1998 (impugned) directing the land in dispute as a Govt. land. The petitioner has further contended that he is in continuous possession over the land since its date of allotment to him i.e. 10.11.1975 and has been cultivating the same regularly paying the land revenue hence, he cannot be removed from the disputed land without due process of law. However, this fact has not been disputed by the petitioner himself that allotment made in his favour was cancelled by the RAA vide order dated 1.5.1978 on the ground that the respondents had produced the copy of Jamabandi of Samwat Year 2014 which the RAA treated the same as Makbuja Malikan (possession of owners) and further held that land in dispute is Khudkasht which was not available for allotment to anybody else. 5. I have examined the contention advanced by the petitioner in the writ petition at length, examined the relevant documents on the record including the judgments rendered by the courts below. Prima-facie, I am of the considered opinion that once the land has been duly entered in the revenue records as Govt. land vide order dated 1.5.1978 of the RAA and which has also been confirmed by the BOR vide order dated 6.8.1998 (impugned), the question regarding the petitioner's continuous possession over the disputed land does not arise. The status of the petitioner over the same is no better than that of trespasser. land vide order dated 1.5.1978 of the RAA and which has also been confirmed by the BOR vide order dated 6.8.1998 (impugned), the question regarding the petitioner's continuous possession over the disputed land does not arise. The status of the petitioner over the same is no better than that of trespasser. In my view, the BOR in its judgment has rightly come to the conclusion that after the allotment/Patta of the land which was earlier issued to the petitioner, erroneously (sic ?) stood cancelled by the concerned revenue authority w.e.f. 1.5.1978 and his name has also been directed to be struck off in the revenue records vide order dated 31.10.1987 of the RAA and thereafter, the disputed land bearing Khasra No. 29 stood automatically vested with the State Government and since in the revenue records it has already been recorded as Govt. land, the question of the petitioner having been in continuous possession over the same earlier does not arise. In any event, the law is well settled that possession of a party even though adverse does not hold good as against the true and lawful owner viz., the State Govt. in instant case. 6. I do not find any merit in the petition so as to interfere with the impugned-orders dated 23.2.1993 of the RAA as well as 6.8.1998 of the BOR. 7. As a result of above discussion, the petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed summarily in limine.Petition Dismissed. *******