JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner was in possession of the land in question since 1959. The temporary allotment made in his favour was renewed from time to time upto 1969. Order of permanent allotment in favour of petitioner was passed on 31.10.1969 under the Old Rules of 1967. Thereafter, on 28.7.1972 his statement was recorded and by an order dated 26.8.1972 (Annex. 3) he was allotted 1 killa of command land and 1 killa of uncommand land. After coming into force the Rules of 1975, a complaint was made to the Assistant case No. 416/77. He recorded statement of the petitioner on 23.4.1977 (Annex. 4). Thereafter, by an order dated 29.4.1977 (Annex. 6) the allotment made in favour of the petitioner was cancelled by the Assistant Colonisation Commissioner. Appeal against the same was also dismissed by Revenue Appellate Authority on 27.9.83 (Annex. 7). Revision against the said order before the Board of Revenue was also dismissed on 4.12.1990 (Annex. 9). Aggrieved of the aforesaid orders at Annex. 6, 7 and 9 the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 2. From the order of the Board of Revenue at Annex. 9 it appears that to the statement of the petitioner was once again recorded on 23.4.77, wherein, he has admitted that shop is on his name, but same is run by his sons. He also admitted that his main source of income is from the shop and not from the agriculture. On this ground alone, Board of Revenue dismissed his revision on the ground that petitioner was not a bona fide agriculturist. 3. Mr. Purohit, learned counsel for the petitioner, vehemently submitted that the courts below have wrongly applied new Rules of 1975 and found the petitioner as not a bona fide agriculturist. He submitted that when the permanent allotment was made in his favour under the Rules of 1967 and it was not disputed that the petitioner was a bona fide agriculturist. He further submitted that Rules of 1975 cannot be applied with retrospective effect. He further submitted that there was a small piece of land from which the petitioner was unable to maintain his family, therefore, he had to earn from the shop, which was run by his sons. He further submitted that Rules of 1975 cannot be applied with retrospective effect. He further submitted that there was a small piece of land from which the petitioner was unable to maintain his family, therefore, he had to earn from the shop, which was run by his sons. He, therefore, submitted that on such ground the petitioner should not have been disposed from the land after as many as years because since 1959 the petitioner is in continuous possession of the land. 4. In support of his submission Mr. Purohit relied upon a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Brij Lal v. Board of Revenue, reported in AIR 1994, SC page 1128 . The Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 5 of the said so judgment pleased to observe that- 5. It is not disputed before us that the appellant is in cultivation possession of. the land since 1970. It would be travesty of justice to dispossess the appellant from the land which he is nourishing for over a period of two decades." 6. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that petitioner has cultivatory possession of the land in question since 1959, I am of the opinion that if he is dispossessed after 40 years it would be travesty of justice. 7. In view of the above discussion, this petition is allowed and the impugned orders at Annex. 6, 7 and 9 are quashed and set aside.Petition allowed. *******