Judgment 1. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the order of the learned Single Judge whereby he allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned notice. 2. It appears that the land of the respondent situated in the Field Firing Range, Bikaner was acquired for the defence purposes. Number of villagers were removed from the acquired land. The State Government rehabilitated the oustees by allotting land in exchange. The respondent was allotted Khasra No. 108 under the Scheme. The oustees were required to pay the concessional price fixed by the Government. The respondent also deposited the concessional rate of Rs. 21,000/-for the land in the year 1999. The appellant State issued a notice asking the respondent to pay the higher price of the land as the same was converted into command land. The said notice was challenged by way of writ petition. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition on the ground that merely because the land was lateron converted into command land could not be a ground for higher price. 3. It is contended by the learned Additional Advocate General that under Rule 24 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Land for Agriculture Purposes) Rules, 1970 the respondent is required to pay the difference of price. On the other hand it is submitted by Mr. Sunil Beniwal learned Counsel that Rule 24 of the Rules of 1970 has no application to the facts of the case as it was a case of special allotment. It is further submitted that the controversy has been concluded by the Division Bench decision of this Court in State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Hajari Ram etc., reported in 1997 (1) RLR page 593. He has invited our attention to Para 12 of the said Judgment which reads as follows:- "The allotments made to the displaced persons/families of Mahajan Field Firing Range were special allotments made under Rule 24 of the Rules, and, therefore, so far as charging of the price of the land allotted to these allottees is concerned, that should be in accordance with this Notification, subject to the reserved price fixed under Rule 17 of the Rules." 4. The instant case is squarely covered by the aforesaid decision. In the instant case also the land was allotted to the respondent on a concessional price being displaced person of Mahajan Field Firing Range. The instant case is squarely covered by the aforesaid decision. In the instant case also the land was allotted to the respondent on a concessional price being displaced person of Mahajan Field Firing Range. Thus, it was a special allotment. Rules 24 has no application to the facts of the case. No interference is warranted with the order of the learned Single Judge. 5. The special appeal stands dismissed.