Honble SHETHNA, J.–These four petitions are disposed of by this common order as they are arising out of common impugned judgment and order dated 30.5.1995 passed by the Board of Revenue, whereby, four separate appeals filed by the present petitioners came to be dismissed and the points involved in it are also same. (2). Ridmal Singh, Roop Singh, Ladu Singh and Smt. Anoop Kanwars` petitions are 4604/96, 4605/96,4485/96 and 4484/96.Ridmal Singh is father of Smt. Anoop Kanwar, Roop Singh is brother of Ridmal Singh and father of Ladu Singh. Ridmal Singh was allotted 50 bighas of uncommand land on 9.8.1965. Roop Singh was also allotted 25 bighas of uncommand land on the same date i.e. 9.8.1965 similarly Anoop Kanwar was allotted 12.4 bighas of uncommand land and Ladu Singh was also allotted 50 bighas uncommand land on 30.8.1969. Thus, four persons of one family have been allotted in all 137.4 bighas of land under the provisions of Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Land for agricultural purpose) Rules, 1957. (3). Land-less person is defined under Rule 2 (iii) of the Rules 1957 which read as under; ``(iii) ``Landless person shall mean a bonafide agriculturist by profession who cultivates or can reasonably, who does accepted to cultivate the land personally, who does not hold any land either in his own name or in the name of any member of his joint family, or who holds an area which is less than the minimum area prescribed for purposes of Sec.53 of the Tenancy Act. (4). One Shri Mukhram Godara of the village came to know that all these persons fraudulently got allotment of the land, therefore, he brought to the notice of the then Honble Chief Minister of the State Of Rajasthan, Jaipur in writing some- where in 1986. Thereupon, the Hon`ble Chief Minister directed the authority to make enquiry in the matter. Accordingly, enquiry was initiated by the Distt. Collector and the Distt. Magistrate, Sriganganagar in 1987 and notices were also issued to all the petitioners. Initially, they appeared through their advocate and ask for time to file reply but, lateron neither their advocate nor they appeared before the Collec- tor, therefore, exparte separate orders of cancellation of allotment of land were passed on 17.5.88. Collector and the Distt. Magistrate, Sriganganagar in 1987 and notices were also issued to all the petitioners. Initially, they appeared through their advocate and ask for time to file reply but, lateron neither their advocate nor they appeared before the Collec- tor, therefore, exparte separate orders of cancellation of allotment of land were passed on 17.5.88. The Collector found in his impugned order dt 17.5.88 that father of Ridmal Singh sold 68.7 bighas of land twenty years before to Shri Dharmpal and Ram Chandra. Ridmal Singh had also 68 .7 bighas of land in village Bangasar. The said fact also suppressed by Ridmal Singh. He got allotment of 48.10 bighas of land in village Gosaisar Tehsil Suratgarh. Thus, by suppressing the fact he got allotment of in all 50 bighas of land on 9.8.65 from Tehsildar Suratgarh. (5). Similarly, Roop Singh had also 85 bighas of land in village Bangasar which was sold twenty years before and he also got 75 bighas of land in his name in village Gosaisar and also got 57 bighas of land in the name of his son Ladhu Singh by suppressing the material fact. (6). Similarly, in case of Smt. Anoop Kanwar the Collector found that by supp- ressing the fact the land was got allotted in her name. In case of Ladhu Singh also land was obtained by practising fraud with the Government. All the four petitioners aggrieved of that order of cancellation of allotment preferred separate appeals before Revenue Appellate Authority which were also dismissed by separate order dated 24.4.90. Aggrieved of that separate second appeals were preferred by them before the Board of Revenue, which came to be dismissed by the common judgment and order dt.30.5.95. (7). ``Landless person is defined under Rule 2(iii) of the Rules, 1957 which I have already reproduced earlier. As per the definition of landless person he/she should not hold any land either in his/her own name or in the name of any member of his/ her joint family. From the facts stated above, admittedly, the land was already there in the name of Ridmal Singh and also in the name of father of Ridmal Singh. It is true that father of Ridmal Singh sold the land twenty years before to some other persons. From the facts stated above, admittedly, the land was already there in the name of Ridmal Singh and also in the name of father of Ridmal Singh. It is true that father of Ridmal Singh sold the land twenty years before to some other persons. But after selling the land if the person become landless and once again try to get advantage of it by suppressing this material fact, then obviously he would not be entitled for allotment. (8). It is true that in all these cases one village person, when he came to know about the fraud and mal practice played by four members of one family he brought to the notice of the then Chief Minister of the State, who immediately ordered to hold inquiry and on inquiry it was found that all the persons played fraud with the Government and fraudulently obtained the land, therefore, their allotment of the land was cancelled. It is true that there was delay of as many as 20 years but, it must be stated that there was no delay on the part of the authority in initiating proceedings. As soon as it had come to the notice in the year1986, the then Hon`ble Chief Minister directed the Collector to hold inquiry and in 1987 itself inquiry was started. If this fraud was not brought to the notice of the State Government then nothing would have happened. The Allotment Rules of 1957 are for the benefit of those really needy and landless persons and not for those persons who are in habit of selling the land and then become landless and get the same and once again sell it. These type of persons deprive really needy persons from their legitimate right of getting land as landless persons. From the facts of these four cases, it is clear that it was a family business and in the name of landless persons in all they get 137.4 bighas of land. (9). In the above background, the following question is required to be considered; Should the delay be fatal even in a case where the allotment or regularisation secured by practising fraud with the Government? (10). Learned counsel Shri Gill for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of this Court (Bhagwati Prasad,J) dated 12.5.1999 delivered in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2224/85. (9). In the above background, the following question is required to be considered; Should the delay be fatal even in a case where the allotment or regularisation secured by practising fraud with the Government? (10). Learned counsel Shri Gill for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of this Court (Bhagwati Prasad,J) dated 12.5.1999 delivered in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2224/85. It was a case of trespasser, who was in possession of the land since 1970 i.e. for almost 29 years when the court decided the matter. Under the circum- stances, this Court was of the opinion that the State Govt. can allot the land to the petitioner in accordance with the Govt. policy. Only direction was issued to the State Govt. by my learned brother Shri Bhagwati Prasad, J. was that to take steps and consider the case of the petitioner for regularisation of the land in question in view of the Supreme Court judgment in case of Brijlal vs. Board of Revenue (1). (11). Learned Counsel Shri Gill also relied upon the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in Patram and others vs. State of Rajasthan and others (2). I fail to understand how this judgment is applicable in case of the petitioner. In para 6 of that judgment the Division Bench of this Court made it clear that if allotment is obtained by fraud or misrepresentation or without consultation with advisory committee then delay shall not come in the way of authority in canceling the allotment. The Division Bench of this Court also relied upon Brijlal`s case (supra). At the cost of repetition I may state that the facts of the present case are totally dif- ferent. Its a case of family business, who have fraudulently obtained 137.4 bighas of land whereas the facts of Patram`s case were totally different. It is true that against Patram`s case S.L.P. was filed by the State of Rajasthan which was dismissed by the Supreme Court. However, it would not make any difference when the facts of this case are totally different. (12). Mr. Gill further relied upon one more judgment of Division Bench of this Court in case of Sona Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan (3). I have gone through the said judgment and I may only say that the facts of that case were also totally different. (12). Mr. Gill further relied upon one more judgment of Division Bench of this Court in case of Sona Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan (3). I have gone through the said judgment and I may only say that the facts of that case were also totally different. It was a case of a Government servant, who got temporary allotment when he was not in service. In view of that, Division Bench of this Court set aside the cacellation order. Thus, it was not a case of fraud with the State Government. (13). Mr. Gill then submitted that petitioners are in possession of the land in question since 1965 and 1969 respectively and to throw them out from the land after almost 30 to 35 years would be nothing but travesty of justice. He therefore, submitted that this Court should set aside the order of cancellation passed by the Collector and confirmed by Revenue Appellate Authority and Board of Revenue. In support of his submission he has relied upon the Supreme Court Judgment in case of Brijlal vs. Board of Revenue (supra) wherein it has been held that:- ``It is not disputed before us that the appellant is in cultivating possession of the land since 1970. It would be travesty of justice to dispo- ssess the appellant from the land which he is nourishing for over a period of four decades.`` (14). He also relied upon the judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court (Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.) in case of Gopi Ram vs. State of Raj. and others (4) and another Judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court (V.G. Palshikar, J.) in case of Dalpat Singh vs. Board of Revenue and Ors. (5). In Gopi Ram`s case (supra), the learned Single Judge of this Court has relied upon the Division Bench judgment in case of Sona Ram (supra), which I have dealt with earlier. Gopi Ram was also a Govt. servant and only on that ground his allotment was cancelled. In Dalpat Singh`s case (supra) learned Single Judge of this court has also relied upon the Supreme Court judgment in case of Brij Lal (supra). In Dalpat Singh`s case, it was proved on record that sale in his favour took place by registered document in December, 1972 and the proceedings for cancellation were taken up in 1976. In Dalpat Singh`s case (supra) learned Single Judge of this court has also relied upon the Supreme Court judgment in case of Brij Lal (supra). In Dalpat Singh`s case, it was proved on record that sale in his favour took place by registered document in December, 1972 and the proceedings for cancellation were taken up in 1976. Thus, Dalpat Singh succeeded and interest of Bhanwar Kanwar was bound to be prejudice by the order of cancellation. He filed petition before this Court when the cancellation proceed- ings were initiated after a delay of 20 years. Relying upon the Supreme Court judgment in State of Gujarat v. Patel Raghavnatha and Ors. (6), wherein it has been observed as under: ``Although there were no period of limitation prescribed under Sec.211 the power of the Commissioner to revise under Sec.65 must be exercised in reasonable time must be determined by the facts of the case and the nature of order which is being revised. In this regard Sec.65 itself indicates the length of the reasonable time within which the Commissioner must act under Sec.211. Under Sec.65 of the Code if the Collector does not inform the applicant of his decision on the application within a period of three months the permission applied for shall be deemed to have been granted. This section shows that a period of three months is considered ample for the Collector to make up his mind and beyond that the legislature thinks that the matter is so urgent that permission shall be deemed to have been granted. Reading sections 211 and 65 together it is clear that the Commissioner must exercise his revisional power within a few months of the order of the Collector. This is reasonable time because after the grant of the permission for building purposes the occupant is likely to spend mo- ney on starting building operations atlesat within a few months from the date of permission. (15). Relying upon the judgment of Supreme Court, the learned Single Judge held that the delay of 20 years on facts of that case was gross delay and on that ground, allotment was not cancelled. (16). I may say that in Patel Raghavanatha`s case (supra), it is made clear that where there is no limit prescribed for revising order, the revising authority must act within reasonable time. The reasonable time depends upon the facts of each case. (16). I may say that in Patel Raghavanatha`s case (supra), it is made clear that where there is no limit prescribed for revising order, the revising authority must act within reasonable time. The reasonable time depends upon the facts of each case. In this case, though there was a delay of 20 years, in proceeding against the petitioners, there was no delay whatsoever on the part of the authority because as soon as it was brought to their notice the proceedings were initiated immediately. If there was any delay after the scandal was brought to notice of the authority or the State Govt., then perhaps question of delay could have been considered, but that is not the case here. (17). The submission made by learned counsel Shri Gill is that after 35 years, if the petitioners are dispossessed from the land, it would be travesty of justice, cannot be accepted for the simple reason that their allotment was cancelled way back in 1988 and, thereafter, they presented the matter first before the Revenue Appellate Authority and then in second appeal before the Board of Revenue and then, before this Court in 1996. It is known to every one that there is always a delay on the part of the court to dispose of the cases because of heavy backlog of cases pending in every court. Therefore, merely because the petitioners have managed to remain in possession of the land for almost 30-35 years from the date of allotment would no be a circumstance in their favour, because it was self created. (18). In view of the above discussion, these petitions fail and are hereby dismi- ssed. Stay granted earlier stands vacated forthwith.