JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This matter has come up on application for seeking clarification by the respondents in respect of the possession which they have entered after the order passed by this Court on 6.12.1999 extending the interim order till the next date for the purpose of hearing the application filed by the respondents u/Cl. 3 of Art. 226 for vacating the interim order passed on 15.7.1999 and no order extending the interim order further was made by the Court on the next date of hearing. 3. It was requested by the learned counsel for the parties that in these circumstances this petition itself maybe heard. Accordingly, this petition is heard and decided finally. 4. The petitioner had filed a suit under section 183-B in 1996 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act r/w Section 5 of Rajasthan Colonisation Act and Rules framed thereunder, that the allotment of land in question made in favour of respondent No. 1-Pukha Ram in 1987 was invalid because land was originally allotted for temporary cultivation to the husband of petitioner-plaintiff in 1968, which temporary lease continued to be renewed until 1980. According to the petitioner that husband of the petitioner had applied for permanent allotment and while that application was pending and husband was in possession until his death, the land could have been allotted in favour of respondent No. 1-Pukha Ram as unoccupied Government land and it is further pleaded that her husband is in continued possession since the first temporary allotment was made in favour of her husband in 1968 and thereafter she has continued to cultivate the land after the death of her husband. 5. The trial Court found that no application for permanent allotment made by the husband of the plaintiff is available on the record and therefore it cannot be said that any application was ever made for permanent allotment after expiry of period of temporary lease by the deceased-husband of the plaintiff. It was also found as a fact soon after the expiry of temporary lease in 1980 the land in Khaoni Jamabandi in Samvat 2038 to 2042 corresponding to calendar year 1981-82 to 1985-86 the land has been entered as vacant Government land and in these state of affairs of record the land has been allotted to respondent No. 1 as vacant Government land in 1987. The plaintiff is not entitled to challenge the allotment made in favour of the respondent No. 1. These finding of fact have been affirmed on further appeal by the Revenue Appellate authority as well as in the second appeal by the Board of Revenue. 6. Learned counsel contended in the first instance that under definition of the 'temporary cultivation lease holder' notwithstanding the expiry of temporary lease such tenant is not denuded of his status as 'temporary cultivation lease holder' tenant. He shall continue to be a tenant by holding over that land continuously by cultivating the land on payment of rent. Since the petitioner fulfils these conditions he never ceased to be 'temporary cultivatory lease holder' in accordance with the Rajasthan Colonisation (Allotment of Government Land in the- Indira Gandhi Colony Area) Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the 'The Rules of 1975') and in view thereof the land was not free for allotment to the respondent. 7. It was also contended that while considering the application for permanent allotment in favour of temporary cultivation lease holder the R. 4 requires that adult son of lease hodler who is otherwise eligible for allotment under these Rules ought to be served with notice providing an opportunity to him for presenting him on application as a landless person. This Rule has also not been followed. 8. No foundation for these facts were laid in pleadings nor such contentions was raised until filing additional affidavit in this Court. These are not issues as to interpretation of statutes. The pleas involve laying the basic foundation in pleading facts for invoking these provisions. For the purpose of falling within the temporary cultivation lease holder after the expiry of existing temporary lease by holding over two factors are to be established; firstly that the petitioner is continuously in possession of the land and cultivating it personally and secondly that he is continuously paying land revenue for the same. There is no such assertion about the payment of land revenue in pleadings or contentions raised before three Revenue Authorities whose orders are under challenge. For the first time the petitioner has sought to raise this issue before this Court by filing a revenue receipt for the year 1995. There is no such assertion about the payment of land revenue in pleadings or contentions raised before three Revenue Authorities whose orders are under challenge. For the first time the petitioner has sought to raise this issue before this Court by filing a revenue receipt for the year 1995. Apart from the fact that new question of fact cannot be allowed to be raised in these proceedings, which are not appellate proceedings, receipt of 1995 cannot be a proof of fact that the petitioner continuously paid revenue from 1980 to 1995, during the period she claims to be in possession of land in question. 9. It may further be noticed that there is no dispute between the parties that in 1994 in summary proceedings for evicting the petitioner from land in question had been commenced by the Tehsildar. The Board of Revenue in its order dated 1.1.1996 found that Tehsildar was not competent authority to take recourse to these proceedings in colony area and he ought to have been referred to the case to S.D.O. for taking appropriate proceedings. This fact alongwith receipt for a period sub- sequent to eviction proceedings at best can be suggestive of the fact that in 1994 the petitioner was in possession. The finding of the Revenue Authority that he was not in possession since the time of the death of her husband and she was facing the eviction proceedings was not set aside on merit while rejecting petitioner's appeal. The Board of Revenue vide its order dated 1.1.1996 has not held in favour of the petitioner that he is in continuous possession from 1986 to 1996. No such finding has been recorded by the Board. Mere reference to lack of jurisdiction on the part of Tehsildar to take recourse to proceedings for summary eviction in the colony area cannot be considered to be finding of continuing possession of the petitioner. No such finding has been recorded by the Board. Mere reference to lack of jurisdiction on the part of Tehsildar to take recourse to proceedings for summary eviction in the colony area cannot be considered to be finding of continuing possession of the petitioner. Thus in the absence of any such finding of any Authority or entry in the official record, and the entry in the record of State in 1981-82 - 1985-86 stating that land was vacant Government land, its allotment in 1987 as a vacant Government land in favour of respondent cannot be said to be illegal for the reasons stated by the petitioner.In these circumstances no interference is called for in the orders which are under challenge in this writ petition.Accordingly this petition fails and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.Petition Dismissed. *******