JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner has by this petition challenged the order passed by the Reviewing Authority revoking the allotment of certain land made in favour of the original petitioner. 2. The litigation, culminating in the above writ petition, has a chequered history and pertains to the allotment of lands bearing numbers 986/1, 1088, 1090, 1091, 1096/1108 and 1063/1107 in village Sindesar Khurd in favour of the petitioner. However, it is not necessary to note the chequered career of the litigation as facts necessary for the proper and judicial disposal of this petition are in a small compass. 3. The petitioner was an ex-Jagirdar and the jagir lands given to the petitioner were resumed under the provisions of the Rajasthan Land Reforms Resumption of Jagir Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act') and he was held entitled to allotment of 30 acres of land as khudkast land (personally cultivable land). Accordingly, the petitioner applied for allotment of Khudkast land on 27-9-56 and on 21-8-58, the petitioner was allotted 30 acres of land. At the time when the allotment was made, the land allotted to the petitioner was not land reserved as pasture land and consequently, was available for allotment as khudkast land to the petitioner. However, when factual possession was sought to be delivered it was found that the land of Arazi No. 993 was a pasture land and 986 was available as vacant land. However, at that time, no other land was recorded as pasture land in the revenue records. Accordingly, possession was delivered to the petitioner of Survey No. 986. 4. Thereafter, it appears that records were amended and certain lands including Survey No. 986 were declared to be pasture land. It has resulted in allotment of the land in favour of the petitioner being cancelled. The cancellation was challenged by the petitioner, which was set aside by some authority and it was upheld by some other authority. Ultimately, the impugned orders have been passed. 5. The petitioner has assailed the impugned orders on several grounds mentioned in the petition. It has resulted in allotment of the land in favour of the petitioner being cancelled. The cancellation was challenged by the petitioner, which was set aside by some authority and it was upheld by some other authority. Ultimately, the impugned orders have been passed. 5. The petitioner has assailed the impugned orders on several grounds mentioned in the petition. Basically the challenge is that at the time when allotment of land was made to the petitioner, the land was not reserved as pasture land and the reservation came only in the year 1960 and, consequently, the allotment made in favour of the petitioner on 21-8-58 and delivery of possession given of Survey No. 986 in pursuance thereto was not liable to be assailed as it appears to be subsequent development of certain land being declared as pasture land i.e. reserved for pasture. 6. In fact, the contention is well founded. The Reviewing Authority had no jurisdiction to cancel the allotment made in favour of the petitioner in 1958 on the ground of what has occurred in 1960. The land in question was not available either as pasture land or as fallow land after allotment in August, 1958 and possession of the petitioner in May, 1959. The Reviewing Authority had, therefore, no jurisdiction to cancel the allotment. 7. Even under Section 19-B of the Act, allotment made under the Act will be quashed only within six months. No jurisdiction in this regard was, therefore, exercised within the period stipulated by S. 19-B and the order of allotment and the delivery of possession in 1958 had itself acquired finality. It was also held accordingly by the Khudkast Commissioner, Rajasthan, by his order dated 4-1-84 (Annex. 6). This order in the circumstances could not have been set aside in a review petition. The impugned order Annex. 7 passed by the Khudkast Commissioner is without jurisdiction and could not have been passed. 8. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order impugned (Annex. 7) dated 8-4-1987 is quashed. The order passed by the Khudkast Commissioner (in Annex. 6) on 4-1-1984 is restored. It is hereby held that the allotment of the lands mentioned in prayer in favour of the petitioner has acquired finality. There will be no order as to costs.Petition allowed. *******