JUDGMENT 1. - The above three petitions being identical factually and legally are disposed of by this joint order. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3. In the Year 1981 these petitioners were allotted agricultural land as landless agriculturist under the 1975 Rules Vide Annexure 1. When a report from the Patwari came that the land was already allotted to somebody else these petitioners vide Annexure 3 were allotted alternative command land in the Year 1987. Each of the petitioners was allotted 25 Bighas land. They were given possession simultaneously and in due course all the instalments were deposited by these petitioners. Each of the petitioner has deposited in 10 installments amount round about Rs. 3,60,000/- as the price of the command land. Subsequently, mutations were also entered in the name of the petitioners as Annexure 5 in the year 1992. 4. This land was subsequently allotted to Sajjana Devi and her two sons as special allotment vide Annexure 6. Sajjana Devi challenged mutation order Annexure 5 before the Collector Sri Ganganagar who vide Annexure 7 cancelled the mutation because the land was recorded as forest land in the revenue record from the very beginning and even could not have been allotted to the petitioners An appeal filed before the Revenue Appellate authority by the present petitioners was also dismissing vide Annexure 8 and the Board of Revenue vide Annexure 9 has dismissed the revision petition of the present petitioners. This Court vide order dated 5.11.1999 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4458/99 remanded the matter back before the Board of Revenue to review their order Annexure 10. Consequently, the Revenue Board passed again order Annexure 12 on 19.2.2001 dismissing the revision petition of the present petitioners by holding that the land was recorded as forest land from the very beginning and could not have been allotted to the present petitioners. Hence this petition. 5. The legal position is clear that forest land could not have been allotted for agricultural purposes. Petitioners were illiterate agriculturist. It being their only source of livelihood they may not be dispossessed. They had no knowledge and concerned allotting authority was careless enough to allot the forest land to the petitioners and gave them possession. They remained in possession throughout and have deposited all the ten installments and have made improvements. Petitioners were illiterate agriculturist. It being their only source of livelihood they may not be dispossessed. They had no knowledge and concerned allotting authority was careless enough to allot the forest land to the petitioners and gave them possession. They remained in possession throughout and have deposited all the ten installments and have made improvements. In such a situation, unless and until these petitioners are allotted suitable command land and given possession they cannot be dispossessed. 6. Consequently, there is merit in these petitions. The same are disposed of with a direction to the Collector, Sri Ganganagar that they be allotted similarly situated, alternative command land and to give possession thereafter they be dispossessed from the forest land already allotted to them. They have already deposited all the installments therefore they may not be charged for the new land. The concerned allotting authority who made the allotment of forest land in the names of these petitioners should be brought to book and care be taken that in future no such illegality be committed by the revenue officials by which the illiterate agriculturist are put to harm and harassment.Writ petition disposed of. *******