Honble SHETHNA, J.–Heard the learned counsel for the parties. (2). The petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste. He was in Railways service as class IV servant and also retired from service since long. In 1971 he was allotted 25 bighas of agricultural land on temporary cultivation basis. Lateron, in 1974 he was permanently allotted the land. It is not in dispute that when the land was allo- tted to him he was landless person. He cultivated the land and nourished the same for so many years. However, after a lapse of almost 15 years of allotment, the Assistant Colonisation Commissioner, Chhattargarh ordered enquiry on a complaint received by him to the effect that when the land was allotted to him he was in Govt. service, which fact was not disclosed by him. The petitioner filed a reply and pointed out that he had a large family of 9 members and his monthly income was hardly Rs.185/-, therefore, he applied for land which was allotted to him in 1971. Bonafidely, he was under the impression that he was not required to disclose the fact that he was in service, therefore, he did not disclose the fact when the land in question was allotted to him. However, by an impugned order dated 3.6.87 the Assistant Colonisation Commissioner cancelled the allotment made in favour of the petitioner. The same was challenged in appeal before the Addl. Colonisation Commissioner- Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner, but the same was dismissed on 7.1.1994 (Annex.2). The petitioner challenged the said order by way of revision before the Board of Revenue but his revision petition was also dismissed on 28.7.98 (Annex.3). Aggrieved of the aforesaid orders, the petitioner has filed this petition before this Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. (3). Learned counsel Shri Singhal for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the petitioner was absolutely poor person when he was allotted land. He was totally illiterate, therefore, not aware about the fact that he was required to disclose the fact that he was in service when the land in question was temporarily allotted to him and lateron allotted on permanent basis. He submitted that when the land was allotted to him the monthly income of the petitioner was only Rs. 185/- out of which he had to maintain 9 family members. Thus, practically he had no income as such to maintain his large family. He submitted that when the land was allotted to him the monthly income of the petitioner was only Rs. 185/- out of which he had to maintain 9 family members. Thus, practically he had no income as such to maintain his large family. He submitted that if the land was not allotted to him he would not have maintained his family members and some of them would have perhaps died because of starvation. He, therefore, submitted that he had not committed such a grave sin which calls for cancellation of land which was allotted to him way back in 1971. He further submitted that the powers of cancellation cannot be exercised after a gross delay of as many as 15 years. He also submitted that now the petitioner is no more in service and if today the land in question is not kept with the petitioner then his entire family would starve. In support of his submission he has also relied upon the Judgment of Supreme Court in case of Brij Lal vs. State (1), wherein, the Apex Court has held that:- ``It is not disputed before us that the appellant is in cultivating posse- ssion of the land since 1971. It would be travesty of justice to dispossess the appellant from the land which is nourishing for over a period of two decades. (4). Mr. Singhal has also relied upon two Judgments of this Court one of Division Bench in case of Sona Ram vs. State of Rajasthan (2), and second of Single Bench of this Court in case of Gopi Ram vs. State of Rajasthan (3). (5). In Gopi Rams case (supra) learned Single Judge of this Court held that non-discloser of such fact may not amount to mis- representation and cancellation of allotment after unreasonable long period was not proper. (6). In Sona Rams case (supra) the Division Bench held that cancellation of allotment cannot be made on such ground that petitioner while in service was not cultivating the land personally. The Division Bench also held that amendment carried in 1982 bringing in its definition ``Govt. employee would not have retrospective effect. (6). In Sona Rams case (supra) the Division Bench held that cancellation of allotment cannot be made on such ground that petitioner while in service was not cultivating the land personally. The Division Bench also held that amendment carried in 1982 bringing in its definition ``Govt. employee would not have retrospective effect. However, learned counsel Shri Jain for the respondent vehemently submitted that when the petitioner had committed breach of conditions of not dis- closing the material fact that he was in service at the time of allotment and that he was not personally cultivating the land would be sufficient ground to cancel the allotment. Learned counsel Shri Jain also tried to submit that the petitioner sold the land belonging to him before the land was permanently allotted to him. He is, therefore, also not entitled to retain the possession of the land and the allotment was rightly cancelled by the authority on this ground. However, going through the impugned order Annex.I it is clear that cancellation order was not based on this fact, therefore, this cannot be used by the other side. (7). Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, and the fact that the petitioner is a poor and illiterate ``Harijan the impugned order of cancel- lation is required to be set aside in view of the aforesaid judgment of this Court in case of Sona Ram and Gopi Ram. (8). In view of the above discussion, this petition is allowed. The impugned order of cancellation at Annex.1 and the order passed in appeal by the appellate authority at Annex.2 and the order Annex.3 passed by the Board of Revenue are hereby quashed and set aside. The possession of the land which is already taken away from the petitioner be given to the petitioner within one month from today.