JUDGMENT 1. - Prayer for dispensing with the paper book is granted and the appeal is heard on merit. 2. This appeal is by one Fatia, who was allotted the land in question on 25.1.1986 which was taken to be lying vacant for allotment by the state Govt. after allotment made in favour of Dulichand was cancelled on 31st July, 1982 by the allotting authority. However, on the date the allotment was made to the present petitioner, the appeal against the cancellation order dated 31.7.1982 was pending before the Addl. Commissioner (colonisation) and the matter was sub-judice. 3. The facts which emerge from the record and about which there Is no dispute are that respondent Dulichand had been allotted land in the first instance in 1971 on temporary cultivation basis and ultimately the land was permanently allotted to him in 1975 as a landless person. On 31st July, 1982 the allotment made in favour of Dulichand was cancelled on the ground that he was not personally cultivating the land. No notice before such cancellation was given to the said Dulichand. 4. Aggrieved with that order Dulichand filed an appeal before the Addl. Commissioner (Colonisation), challenging the order on merit as well as on the ground that no notice prior to alleged cancellation was given to the petitioner and the procedure required to be followed before cancelling any allotment was not followed by the allotting authority. The Addl. Commissioner (Colonisation) vide his order dated 24.2.1986 allowed the appeal filed by Dulichand. He found as a fact, on the basis of material before him, that Dulichand was personally cultivating the land in Samvat years 2037, 2038 & 2039. These samvat years correspond to Svt. Years 1980-81, 1981-82 and 1982-83. That means until the date of cancellation of the allotment the allottee was in personal cultivation of the land. The Addl. Commissioner (Colonisation) also found that even assuming that this needs to be established by further evidence, no notice was issued to the allottee in writing to show cause before the cancellation order was made by the allotting authority. He also found that the State has not been able to prove that the principal source of livelihood of the allottee is not the agriculture but some other vocation. However, during the pendency of this, treating the land free for allotment, same was allotted to appellant Fatia. The State Govt. He also found that the State has not been able to prove that the principal source of livelihood of the allottee is not the agriculture but some other vocation. However, during the pendency of this, treating the land free for allotment, same was allotted to appellant Fatia. The State Govt. was not aggrieved with the order passed by addl. Commissioner (Colonisation), thus, so far as dispute between the allottee and the allotting authority was concerned came to an end. However, the present appellant apprehending that if the allotment of Dulichand is restored he is bound to be ousted from the land, preferred a revision before Board of Revenue against the order dated 24th Feb., 1986 raising multiple grounds. The Board of Revenue while agreeing with the finding of the Addl. Commissioner (Colonisation) which prevailed with him for setting aside the order of cancelling the allotment of land to Dulichand, held that since the allotment was made while appeal was pending, the allotment will be subject to doctrine of his pendence. The State Govt. could not have parted with the land in somebody to confer indefeatable right and therefore held that right of restitution cannot be defeated by allotment of land during the pendency of the appeal. But looking to the fact that the land had been allotted to Fatia, without any fault of his, directed the State Govt. to compensate Fatia by allotting him some other land, because allotment having been made in 1986 of the land which as found by the appellate authority was not available for allotment. 5. This order by the Board was not interfered with by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition filed by Fatia. However, the learned Single Judge maintained the order of the Board of Revenue about the direction to consider allotment of some other land to Fatia because as a result of the order of the Addl. Commissioner (Colonisation) the land stood restored to the original allottee. 6. Aggrieved with the order of the learned Single Judge, this appeal is before us. We fail to see any merit in this appeal. As per the finding that original allottee Dulichand in whose favour permanent allotment was made in 1974 was in personal cultivation of land in samvat 2037 to 2039. 6. Aggrieved with the order of the learned Single Judge, this appeal is before us. We fail to see any merit in this appeal. As per the finding that original allottee Dulichand in whose favour permanent allotment was made in 1974 was in personal cultivation of land in samvat 2037 to 2039. The corresponding calendar year of 2039 will be the Gegorian calendar of 1982-83 which completely establishes that as on 31st July, 1982 when the order of cancellation was made, there was no factual foundation existing for holding that Dulichand was not in personal cultivation of the land in question. This finding, in our opinion, is not liable to be interfered with by issuing a writ of certiorari as it does not suffer from any patent error. So also the finding that State Govt. which wanted to dispossess the allottee from land in question, has failed to prove that allottee was not an agriculturist, is a finding of fact. We also do not find any wrong in the order of Addl. Commissioner (Colonisation) as confirmed by the Board of Revenue that an order passed without issuing notices is nonest being violative of natural justice. 7. In these circumstances, the only consequence is that if cancellation order is set aside, the permanent allotment made in favour of Dulichand shall stand restored and he is entitled to secure his possession. Moreover, the petitioner has challenged the action of the State. The State being a party to litigation between respondent Dulichand and the present appellant, he being successor in interest of the State during the pendency of appeal, he cannot challenge those findings. 8. In these circumstances, we do not find any ground to interfere in this appeal. Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. No costs.Appeal dismissed - Order of Single Judge upheld. *******