JUDGMENT 1. - The brief facts necessary for adjudication of the question involved in this petition, are that 25 bigha agricultural land out of khasra no. 408 were surrendered by the then Jagirdar and the then khatedar which were recorded as 'banjar johar' by order dated 29.12.1971. On 29.12.1971 itself the land was allotted to the petitioner. Later on five villagers filed an application for cancellation of the allotment raising an objection that the land could not have been allotted under the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Land for Agricultural Purposes) Rules, 1970. The case was registered as no. 86/72 Kaluram & others v. Smt. Bhanwar Kanwar & Others . Notice was issued of this proceeding by the Collector, but could not be served by affixture and, therefore, it was published in the newspaper. Later on the Collector took up ex-parte proceedings and cancelled the order of allotment made in favour of the petitioner. The order was passed on 14.10.1974. The appeal was preferred on 24.1.1975 which was dismissed by the Revenue Appellate Authority as barred by limitation. Aggrieved by the order of Revenue Appellate Authority, the petitioner preferred second appeal before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue found that notice was published in newspaper and, therefore, the petitioner could not have raised the ground that she could not file appeal within the period of limitation because notice was not served on her. The Board of Revenue dismissed the second appeal upholding the order of Revenue Appellate Authority on the question of limitation alone. 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner that the mode of publication of notice could have been resorted to only if the notice as required under Section 59 and Section 60 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 could not be served. Section 60 prescribes the mode of serving notice either by tendering or delivering a copy of notice or sending a copy of notice by registered post or by affixture. Rule 179 provides that the mode of substituted service by publication in newspaper shall be had only if service by other modes are considered impracticable. There is nothing on record to show that the manner in which notice is required to be served under Section 60 was exhausted and thereafter the mode of service under Rule 179 was resorted to. Rule 179 provides that the mode of substituted service by publication in newspaper shall be had only if service by other modes are considered impracticable. There is nothing on record to show that the manner in which notice is required to be served under Section 60 was exhausted and thereafter the mode of service under Rule 179 was resorted to. From the documents filed on record it is clear that notice returned un-served with the endorsement that the house in which the petitioner was living has fallen down and, therefore, notice could not be affixed. Under these circumstances, it is obvious that notice was not tried to be effected by taking recourse to the mode prescribed under Section 60. The mode adopted by the Authority for service of notice by publication was not in accordance with law and thus the Collector had no jurisdiction to pass the order of cancellation. There was sufficient reason for not filing the appeal before Revenue Appellate Authority within the period of limitation as notice was not effected on the petitioner. 3. For the reasons stated above, I am of the view that notice was not served on the petitioner as required under the law before the matter was taken up and the allotment made in favour of the petitioner was cancelled. It has also been brought to my notice that the land in question was recorded as 'banjar johar' of the khatedar and not that of the village in general and thus according to me there is an arguable question which requires determination on merits. 4. Taking an overall view of the matter, the order of Collector dated 14.10.1974, order of the Revenue Appellate Authority and that of the Board of Revenue, are set aside. The matter is remitted to the Collector Sikar for reconsideration on merits. As the matter is pending consideration since long, I direct the petitioner to appear before the Collector Sikar on 16.4.1999 and thereafter the Collector will take up the proceedings in accordance with law. It is made clear that no further notice shall be issued to the petitioner in the matter. The Collector is expected to decide the case within a period of six months from 16.4.1999. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.Petition Disposed of as Above. *******