JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner Jagdev Singh has challenged in this petition the impugned order Annex.2 dated 1.08.98 and Annex.3 dated 04.02.99 passed by respondent No.2 Addl. Collector (Admn.), Sriganganagar. 2. Joginder Singh was the original allottee who died in accident on 09.09.76 leaving behind his widow Niki Devi and two minor sons and one major son - in all, 3 sons. They are Harijans belonging to scheduled caste. On 10.07.92, by an ex parte order S.D.O. Raisinghnagar cancelled the allotment made in favour of late Joginder Singh. As per the judgment and order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court the learned Spl. Judge took up the matter in review by exercising his suo motu powers. The present petitioner appeared before the learned Spl. Judge as respondent No.2 claiming that he was in possession of the land in question as per the will executed by deceased Joginder Singh in his favour. The learned Spl. Judge by his impugned order dated 27.07.98 set aside the cancellation order passed by the S.D.O. in favour of the original allottee and ordered that the question regarding possession of the land be decided as per the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. As per the said judgment of the learned Spl. Judge Anex.-1 the respondent No.2 Addl. Collector by his order dated 11.08.98 (Annex.-2) directed the S.D.O. to comply with the order passed by the learned Spl. Judge and deliver the possession. Similarly, by subsequent order dated 04.02.99 (Annex.-3) respondent No.2 directed the S.D.O. to hand over the possession as per the order passed by the learned Spl. Judge on 27.07.98 (Annex.-1). 3. According to the petitioner, the Patwari Halka of the area came to him on February 15/16, 1999 for delivering the vacant possession of the land to Smt. Niki Devi - widow of original allottee Joginder Singh and other persons. The petitioner requested him to give some time to enable him to approach the respondent No.2 - Add]. Collector. He (petitioner) came to Ganganagar and applied for the copies of the order and orally requested the respondent No.2 for withdrawing the order but his request was not acceded to. Therefore, on 25.02.99, he submitted an application to respondent No.2 stating that the learned Spl. Judge has not ordered in his order dated 27.08.98 for delivering the possession. However, the said judgment of the learned Spl. Therefore, on 25.02.99, he submitted an application to respondent No.2 stating that the learned Spl. Judge has not ordered in his order dated 27.08.98 for delivering the possession. However, the said judgment of the learned Spl. Judge has been wrongly interpreted by him and the orders were passed to hand over the possession of the land. Though there is an averment to the effect made in para 11, the application dated 25.02.99 was not annexed by the petitioner alongwith his petitioner. However, during the course of arguments, learned counsel Shri Jain produced the copy of application dated 25.02.99 as Annex.-4 which is taken on record. In that application, it has been stated that the Revenue Board, Ajmer has already passed an order of stay till 23.03.99, therefore, the order passed by him (Addl. Collector) to hand over the possession of the land was wrongly passed and is required to be set aside. 4. Learned counsel Shri Jain for the petitioner submitted that as per the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pong Dam's case, the learned District Judge has to send his report to the Committee and his report is binding to the oustee-allottees and the State of Rajasthan. He submitted that without any such report under the garb of order dated 27.08.98 passed by the learned Spl. Judge the Addl. Collector passed the impugned orders at Annex.-2 and 3 of handing over the possession of the land. Therefore, the impugned orders are required to be set aside. 5. From the application dated 25.02.99 (Annex.-4), it appears that the petitioner has already availed of an alternative remedy before the Revenue Board, Ajmer and obtained stay order. Before any decision is taken by respondent No.2 the petitioner has rushed to this Court by way of this writ petition. That apart, on merits also the petitioner has no case because, the petitioner is not 'Harijan' belonging to Scheduled Caste. He is Jat Sikh as mentioned in the cause title of the petition, whereas the deceased - the original allottee of the land Joginder Singh was Harijan belonging to Scheduled Caste. It would be difficult for any one to believe that deceased Joginder Singh would give the land under the will to the present petitioner Jagdev Singh particularly when his young widow and three sons - two minor and one major - were very much alive. Once the learned Spl. It would be difficult for any one to believe that deceased Joginder Singh would give the land under the will to the present petitioner Jagdev Singh particularly when his young widow and three sons - two minor and one major - were very much alive. Once the learned Spl. Judge has come to the conclusion in his impugned order at Annex.-1 that on the death of the original allottee Joginder singh his widow was not able to cultivate the land, and accordingly, the order of cancellation passed by the S.D.O. has been set aside by the learned Spl. Judge, then obviously the possession of the land should go to the widow and sons of the original allottee - Joginder Singh. 6. Under the circumstances, no error is committed by the respondent No.2 in directing the S.D.O., Anopgarh to hand over the possession of the land in question to Smt. Niki Devi widow of deceased Joginder Singh and her sons.In view of the above discussion, I do not find any substance or merit in this petition. Accordingly, it fails and is dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******