JUDGMENT 1. - The present writ petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was allotted an agricultural land in Tehsil Chohatan District Barmer. After allotment, khatedari rights were conferred on the petitioner vide Annex. 1, Jamabandi for the Smt. year 2043 to 2046 have been produced in evidence for the same. An application was moved by the Tehsildar for cancellation of the allotment before the Collector, Barmer under Rule 14(4) of the Rajasthan Agricultural Land Allotment Rules, 1970. The case was registered and notices were issued to to the parties. Vide order dated 25.3.1996, the allotment in favour of the petitioner was cancelled. It was found by the Collector in his order that land was recorded as custodian land being declared as to be evacuee property and thus rights of allotment on evacuee property were not available with the Revenue Department. That being the position, the S.D.O. had no rights to allot the said land. The land was allotted without jurisdiction. An appeal was filed before the Revenue Appellate Authority by the petitioner. The Revenue Appellate Authority found that land being custodian land, the Revenue Department had no right to make allotment in favour of the petitioner and consequently dismissed the appeal. The matter taken up by the petitioner before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue found that petitioners have not been able to prove that the lands in question were not custodian land, and therefore, allotment in their favour was incorrect. That being the position, the appeals before the Board of Revenue were dismissed. A review was also filed before the Board of Revenue but the same was dismissed. 3. The petitioners have challenged the order as enumerated above before this Court and contended that they are in possession of land and have been conferred with khatedari rights. Long possession and conferment of khatedari rights should not be taken away so slightly. 4. Per contra, respondents contested that land allotted to the petitioner was not in accordance with law. A land which has been recorded as custodian land could not have been allotted by the Revenue Department. The initial order of the Revenue Department is without jurisdiction. Long possession and conferment of khatedari rights should not be taken away so slightly. 4. Per contra, respondents contested that land allotted to the petitioner was not in accordance with law. A land which has been recorded as custodian land could not have been allotted by the Revenue Department. The initial order of the Revenue Department is without jurisdiction. He contends that Section 46 of the Act of 1950 bars the jurisdiction of the civil and revenue courts in respect of any matter which the Custodian General or the Custodian is empowered by or under the Act to determine. 5. I have considered the rival submissions. 6. What is undisputed is that the land is a custodian land. It was not a revenue land. If the land was not a revenue land, the revenue authorities had no right to make allotment and all the courts below have rightly held that revenue authorities have no right to make allotment of custodian land. Further, all steps after allotment of land would have to necessarily fail because the basic order was without jurisdiction. The learned courts below have rightly passed the orders impugned. In view thereof, the aforesaid petitions are dismissed. The petitioners may approach the Revenue Authority for making fresh allotment in their favour if they are otherwise entitled.Petitions dismissed. *******