JUDGMENT 1. - In these writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the factual and legal points involved are identical, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Writ Petition No. 43/1996 has been filed on behalf of petitioner Ravi Dutt whereas Petition No. 44/1996 has been filed on behalf of purchaser of Parmanand and Petition No. 46/ 1996 is also filed on behalf of purchaser of Mangelal. 3. The applications were filed under sub-section (2-A) of Section 15-AAA of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") before the Tehsildar. Ghadsana on 3- 5-1993 who after procuring a report from the halka patwari conferred upon them khatedari rights by his order dated 28-5-1993. Aggrieved against that order State of Rajasthan, through Naib Tehsildar, Ghadsana, filed appeals before the Collector, Sriganganagar who vide order dated 24-7-1995 has set aside the order of Tehsildar. A revision petition filed in the Board of Revenue, Ajmer vide Anx. 7 dated 5-9-1995 was also dismissed. Hence these petitions. 4. In order to get benefit of sub-section (2-A) of Section 15-AAA of the Act the applicant was to prima facie show that he was a holder of khudkasht or a tenant of land whether recorded as such at the commencement of this Act or subsequently in the record of the rights and, therefore, was entitled to all the rights and all liabilities of khatedar tenant under this Act. With respect to the whole or such part of the and held as does not exceed the maximum area prescribed under the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973. What was to be seen by the Tehsildar was this that the applicants were either a holder of khudkasht or a tenant of the land for which application was made. Under sub-section(23) of Section 5 of the Act khudkasht shall mean land cultivated personally by an estate holder and shall include (i) land recorded as khudkasht, sir, havala, nijijot, gharkhed in settlement records at the commencement of this Act; and (ii) land allotted after such commencement as khudkasht under any law for the time being in force. Rights of khudkasht holder have been dealt with in chapter-II. Rights of khudkasht holder have been dealt with in chapter-II. According to Section 9 of the Act,' "khudkasht right" means the rights conferred on holders of khudkasht by this Act and by any other law for the time being in force. Section 10 of the Act prescribes succession and transfer of holder of khudkasht right. Section 11 of the Act prescribes restriction on letting on khudkasht. Section 12 of the Act prescribes extinction of khudkasht right and Section 13 prescribes khatedari rights upon resumption or abolition of estate. Its proviso makes malik of such khudkasht and the Zamindar or Biswedar holding khudkasht land on the abolition of his estate under the Rajasthan Zamindari and Biswedari Abolition Act, 1959. 5. In the matter at hand, Tehsildar was under a legal duty before conferring khatedari rights to the applicants to prima facie come to the conclusion that the applicants were either a holder of khudkahst of tenant of the land. Ravi Dutt petitioner filed Anx. 3 application before the Tehsildar, Ghadsana on 3-5-1993 with the averments that with regard to land mentioned in the application, Rajasthan State has accepted him a khatedar kastkar and the record of the rights which were prepared under Section 106 and 107 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, he has been shown as kastkar of the land in samvat 2012-15, therefore, he must be conferred khatedari rights. The Tehsildar, Ghadsana simply upon the report of halka patwari vide order Anx.4 came to the conclusion that Ravi Dutt has been declared Gair Khatedar with regard to the land in question and is not affected by ceiling limit prescribed under the Act, therefore, was entitled to get khatedari rights under sub-section (2-A) of Section 15-AAA of the Act. It is also mentioned that in jamabandi samvat 2012-15 he has been shown as Bhumi Adhikari i.e. the land holder. No notice of this application was given to the Naib Tehsildar concerned. When Ravi Dutt was shown as Gair Khatedar who had no transferable or heritable rights, prima facie it cannot be said that he was a khudkasht or a tenant of the land, yet in a slip shod manner in hot haste Tehsildar conferred khatedari rights to him. No notice of this application was given to the Naib Tehsildar concerned. When Ravi Dutt was shown as Gair Khatedar who had no transferable or heritable rights, prima facie it cannot be said that he was a khudkasht or a tenant of the land, yet in a slip shod manner in hot haste Tehsildar conferred khatedari rights to him. Even in the application Ravi Dutt has not stated that he was not having any other land in his name or under his cultivation nor he has stated the names of the members of his family and also not disclosed whether they were also having any land in their names. Keeping in view the afore stated legal and factual aspects in mind the Collector, Sriganganagar and Board of Revenue, Ajmer have decided against the petitioner. 6. So far as remaining two petitions are concerned Jarnel Singh etc. were purchasers from Parmanand and Major Singh was purchaser from Mangelal. They have purchased through registered sale deed dated 27-6-1970 and 27-9-1982 respectively. The application under sub-section (2-A of Section 15-AAA of the Act was not filed on behalf of Parmanand and Mangelal but on behalf of purchasers in which it has also not been specifically stated that their vendors had acquired any khatedari rights prior to the sale. Even Tehsildar, Ghadsana vide order dated 27-5-1993 came to the conclusion that their vendors were gair khatedars. According to sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Act khudkasht right is not transferable except by exchange or partition of the khudkasht or by gift for the purpose of maintenance. Even there was restriction on letting of khudkasht except as provided in Sections 45 and 46 vide Section 11 of the Act. According to sub-clause(ii) of sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act, land shall cease to be khudkasht upon transfer thereof in contravention of sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Act, therefore, on the date of execution of the registered sale deed and handing over of the possession to the purchasers their vendors right of khudkasht has extinguished, yet Tehsildar Ghadsana without considering the legal aspect referred above, conferred khatedari rights on them which even could not have been conferred on the vendors Parmanand and Mangelal. Even these non-petitioners have not mentioned in their applications the fact that even after including the land in question ceiling limit provided under the Act of 1973 will not exceed. 7. Had there been any jamabandi in favour of original holder of khudkasht either in samvat 2012 when the Tenancy Act came into force or even subsequently prepared during the survey or re-survey and record operations conducted under Section 106 and 107 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, the Tehsildar, Ghadsana may have been in his right to confer khatedari rights on the original khudkasht holder and not upon their purchasers. In the matter at hand, none of the conditions of sub-section (2-A) of Section 15-AAA of the Act has been fulfilled yet khatedari rights were conferred which has rightly been set aside on appeal by the Collector, Sriganganagar and in revision by Board of Revenue, Ajmer. 8. The extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to be invoked only where circumstances are exceptional and do warrant the exercise of such power. This extraordinary jurisdiction is to prevent illegal interference or arbitrary action and unreasonable orders affecting the rights of the parties. The court is concerned with substantial justice. When the petitioners do not have anything to present by way of substantial grievance and there is not even a title of grievance relating to substantial justice, such a case deserves strong disapproval from this Court. 9. Consequently, there are no merits in these petitions and the same stand dismissed.Petitions dismissed. *******