JUDGMENT 1. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Upon application of the petitioner 23 bighas land of square No. 213/62 in chak 9 GM was allotted to him. Subsequently, chak 9 GM was re-numbered as chak 10 GM. 3. Upon a complaint made against that allotment, allotment of 6 bighas in kilas No. 18 to 23 of the above square was cancelled vide order dated 15-10-1980, holding that the petitioner was entitled to only 17 bighas of land. An appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the Revenue Appellate Authority in which an interim order was passed, staying dispossession of the petitioner from aforestated 6 bighas land. Subsequently, the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner vide order Annx. 2 dated 22-51987, accepted the appeal of the petitioner and the matter was remanded back to the allotting authority to proceed afresh. 4. During pendency of the appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner, on the application of the petitioner, 2 bighas agriculture land in Kilas No. 24-25 of the above square was allotted to the petitioner vide Annx. 3 dated 29-5-1985, as strip of land attached to the square. Similarly, vide order Annx. 4 dated 252-1986. petitioner was again allotted 6 bighas land in kilas No. 18 to 23 of above square under rule 13(5)(vi) of the Rajasthan Colonisation (Allotment & Sale of Government Land in Indira Gandhi Canal Area) Rules. 1975. After fulfilling conditions of allotment and depositing of instalments, 'sanad' Annx. 5 was also issued in favour of the petitioner. 5. Subsequently, when it was brought to notice of the allotting authority that the stay order issued by the Revenue Appellate Authority in favour of petitioner was vacated but withholding that material information, petitioner got aforesaid allotments; the Colonisation Commissioner vide order Annx. 6 dated 1-7-1992 not only cancelled allotment of 2 bighas land as small patch but also allotment of 6 bighas. allotted vide order Annx. 4. 6. Aggrieved against that order, revision petition filed before the Board of Revenue was also dismissed vide Annx. 7 dated 28th November, 1994. Hence, this petition. 7. Learned counsel submitted that when appeal of the petitioner was accepted by the Revenue Appellate Authority vide order Annx. 2 dated 22-5-1987, even if the stay order was vacated in between, the final order Annx. 2 should have been considered by the Deputy Commissioner (Colonisation) while passing the order Annx. 7 dated 28th November, 1994. Hence, this petition. 7. Learned counsel submitted that when appeal of the petitioner was accepted by the Revenue Appellate Authority vide order Annx. 2 dated 22-5-1987, even if the stay order was vacated in between, the final order Annx. 2 should have been considered by the Deputy Commissioner (Colonisation) while passing the order Annx. 6 dated 1-7-1992 and allotment of 2 bighas as strip of land as also subsequent allotment of 6 bighas land should not have been cancelled. It is further submitted that Board of Revenue has also not considered in right perspective and dismissed the revision petition, without mentioning sufficient reasons. 8. On the contrary, learned standing counsel for the Department has supported the impugned order. 9. I have carefully considered the rival submissions. 10. At the time when petitioner submitted application for allotment of kilas No. 24-25 of above square as strip of land, he should have stated that allotment of 6 bighas land in kilas No. 18 to 23 of above square was though cancelled yet he has filed an appeal challenging that order. The petitioner withheld that important information at that time. Similarly, the petitioner has also withheld necessary information that by the time 2 bighas small patch was allotted to him, the interim stay order granted by the Revenue Appellate Authority at the time of admission has been vacated. Had all this material information been disclosed by the petitioner at the time of filing application for allotment, the 'allotting authority may not have allotted him the above land under small patch category because by that time allotment of land to petitioner in kilas No. 18 to 23 of above square has been cancelled and in the appeal filed by the petitioner against that order, interim stay order was also not in force. In such a situation, on the day wren 2 bighas land was allotted as small patch, the petitioner was not having title over land of kilas No. 18 to 23 and therefore. his entitlement to allotment of 2 bighas land as small patch was not bona fide. 11. Similarly, when allotment of 6 bighas land in kilas No. 18 to 23 was cancelled and appeal was pending for consideration before the Revenue Appellate Authority, till disposal of that appeal, no new allotment under the Rules of 1975 was permissible. his entitlement to allotment of 2 bighas land as small patch was not bona fide. 11. Similarly, when allotment of 6 bighas land in kilas No. 18 to 23 was cancelled and appeal was pending for consideration before the Revenue Appellate Authority, till disposal of that appeal, no new allotment under the Rules of 1975 was permissible. This fact was also withheld by the petitioner from the allotting authority. The petitioner should have waited for final outcome of the appeal pending before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner instead of procuring re-allotment of 6 bighas land of kilas No. 18 to 23. The Deputy Commissioner (Colonisation) vide order annex. 6 dated 1-7-1992 has dealt with the matter under sub-rule (3) of Rule 22 of the Rules of 1975 and has proceeded after giving notice to the petitioner, who also submitted reply on 20-12-1989 and has argued the matter on 11-3-1992; which shows that petitioner was given full hearing before issuing cancellation order against him. 12. Similarly, the Board of Revenue also, after hearing both the parties and dealing with all the averments of the parties, has come to right conclusion that material information has been withheld by the petitioner while procuring not only 2 bighas land as small patch but also reallotment of 6 bighas land, pending disposal of the appeal against the cancellation order. 13. This Court, while exercising extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226, can interfere only when there is any violation of any existing right of the petitioner, which may result in miscarriage of justice. In the matter at hand, the petitioner is guilty of withholding material information. Consequently, there is no merit in this petition and same is hereby dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******