Judgment Rajesh Balia, J.-Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. This appeal has chequered history as will be apparent from the chronology of events about which now there is no dispute. 3. 12 Bighas 10 biswas of land was originally allotted on temporary cultivation lease to one Mohinder Singh, Sunar Sikh, The exact date has not come on record about commencement of the temporary cultivation lease in favour of Mohinder Singh Sikh but that cultivation lease came to an end on 16.08.1970 when he died. The present appellants are his widow Chanan Kaur and his sons Santok Singh and Gurdayal Singh. 4. Temporary cultivation lease which is governed by the Temporary Cultivation Leases Conditions, 1995, as amended from time to time envisages that temporary leases may be made for a period not exceeding five years at a time except in case of Mahi Project Area, where such period shall not exceed one year. 5. Condition 18(3) is relevant for the present purpose which reads as under:- “18. Surrender- .(1) ...............................(2)................................. .(3) Atenant shall at the expiry or termination of the tenancy leave the land and surrender it peacefully to Government and during the concluding season of the tenancy shall not sow any crop of the succeeding season but shall permit any person duly authorised by the Collector to cultivate crops on the said lands.” 6. It is pertinent to notice here that the total 12.10 bighas of land which was in temporary cultivation of Mohinder Singh Sunar Sikh and after his death, it was allotted as temporary cultivation to his two sons. On expiry of period of T.C. lease. In 1975, the T.C. Lease came to be allotted to Ratan Singh and Mahendra Singh sons of Lal Singh Jat Sikh, 6.5 bighas of land to each. 7. Mahendra Singh, the other allottee of the land, except phonetic similarity with original T.C. Lease holder Mohinder Singh, has no connection with Mohinder Singh Sunar Sikh. It appears that at some stage confusion came to prevail by considering Ratan Singh brother of Mahendra Singh s/o Lal Singh Jat Sikh as brother of Mohinder Singh Sunar Sikh original allottee which is not in fact correct. 8. The temporary cultivation lease made in favour of respondent Ratan Singh and his brother Mahendra Singh, respectively continued till 1990. It appears that at some stage confusion came to prevail by considering Ratan Singh brother of Mahendra Singh s/o Lal Singh Jat Sikh as brother of Mohinder Singh Sunar Sikh original allottee which is not in fact correct. 8. The temporary cultivation lease made in favour of respondent Ratan Singh and his brother Mahendra Singh, respectively continued till 1990. By two separate orders dated 07.08.1991 permanent allotment was made in favour of Ratan Singh and his brother Mahendra Singh. Against the permanent allotment made in favour of Mahendra Singh as well as Ratan Singh, two appeals were preferred before the Revenue Appellate Authority by the present appellant. Said appeals were rejected on 12.09.1994. In this order it was noticed that the present appellants have also challenged the order of temporary cultivation lease allotment made in favour of Mahendra Singh and Ratan Singh sons of Lal Singh Jat Sikh and that appeal had been rejected by Revenue Appellate Authority, and, therefore, temporary cultivation lease allotment made in favour of Ratan singh and Lal Singh had become final. It was also recorded that since 1975 land is not being cultivated by the appellant Chanan Kaur wd/o of Mohinder Singh and his two sons, and, it was also found that since allotment has been made not only on the basis of temporary cultivation Lease but also on the basis of continuous cultivation since 1975 in favour of two brothers respectively, the same is not liable to be interfered with. 9. It appears that before the Revenue Appellate Authority a contention was raised on behalf of the appellants that they have not surrendered the land at any time, therefore, there was no question of acceptance of surrender and allotment of land to the present respondent Ratan Singh or to Mahendra Singh sons of Lal Singh could not have been made land on permanent basis. Apparently this was a late surge on the part of the appellants to raise dispute about the surrender. 10. Be that as it may, this contention of surrender raised on behalf of present appellants was not accepted on the ground that the temporary cultivation lease already made in favour of temporary allottees has since become final, question of surrender of the land does not effect the permanent allotment. 11. 10. Be that as it may, this contention of surrender raised on behalf of present appellants was not accepted on the ground that the temporary cultivation lease already made in favour of temporary allottees has since become final, question of surrender of the land does not effect the permanent allotment. 11. The Revisions against order of Revenue Appellate Authority were decided by the learned Single Member of the Board of Revenue on 210.1994. The Board of Revenue rejected the claim of Chanan Kaur and her two sons as temporary cultivation lease holders and remitted the case back to the Collector, Sri Ganganager seeking verification as to whether the allotments made in favour of non-applicants by S.D.O. Raisinghnager dated 07.08.1991 were as per law. If he finds that there is some irregularity, he may take action under the law as deemed fit under the law. This order was also not challenged by the present appellants, which held against them that on expiry of temporary lease in favour of the objections, which was not renewed, the land in question was validly allotted on temporary cultivation lease to Ratan Singh and Mahendra Singh. 12. In pursuance of this order when the matter reached to the Collector, Sri Gangangar, petitioners took the plea that the permanent allottees did not remain in cultivatory possession from 1953 to 1960, therefore, they are not entitled to any allotment vide allotment order dated 07.08.1991, whereas the allottees viz., Mahendra Singh and Ratan Singh respondents in two cases placed reliance on the fact that they are in possession through out and from 1975 to 1995 under temporary cultivation lease. 13. Learned Collector relying on the provisions of Rule 6-A of the Rajasthan Colonisation (Gang Canal Lands Permanent Allotment and Sale) Rules, 1956 held allotment to be invalid. He also noticed that the land was admittedly on temporary cultivation lease of the permanent allottees since 1975. He also observed that before allotment public notice was not issued. 14. On appeal, order of the Collector was affirmed by the Revenue Appellate Authority by its order dated 28th of April, 1997 and appeals filled by Ratan Singh and Mahendra Singh were dismissed. 10.15. Both the allottees preferred separate revisions before the Board of Revenue. He also observed that before allotment public notice was not issued. 14. On appeal, order of the Collector was affirmed by the Revenue Appellate Authority by its order dated 28th of April, 1997 and appeals filled by Ratan Singh and Mahendra Singh were dismissed. 10.15. Both the allottees preferred separate revisions before the Board of Revenue. The leaned Single Member of the Board of Revenue accepted the revisions vide order dated 26.08.1997 passed commonly and held that the previous order passed in Revision No. 24/94 dated 210.1994, Chanan Kaur vs. Mahendra Singh, which related to above referred case, it was held that appeal filed by the appellants against temporary cultivation lease allotment in favour of non-applicant Mohindra Singh was rejected by the Revenue Appellate Authority, therefore, she has no locus standi to challenge the order of allotment made in favour of the present allottees. While dismissing the said revision petition, the case was referred back to the Collector for making enquiry about allotment made in favour of Ratan Singh and Mahendra Singh independently of any claim of Chanan Kaur. 16. On the basis of the order dated 210.1994 the learned Single Member of the Board held that the claim of Smt. Chanan Kaur was barred by principle of res judicata and estopple from challenging the allotment made in favour of Ratan Singh and Mahendra Singh sons of Lal Singh. Allotment made in favour of the present allottees was upheld under Rule 3(8)(b) of Rules of 1956 as allotment to any other landless person. The learned Member also referred to the record to the case and came to specific finding that there has been publication of notice of land available for allotment and allotment has been made as a landless person and not merely as temporary cultivation lease holder. He, therefore, found no illegality in the allotment made in favour of the allottees and consequently order of the Collector was set aside and revision petitions were accepted. 17. Against the orders passed in two revision petitions, two special appeals were preferred before the Division Bench of the Board of Revenue which were decided on 211.1997. The Division Bench of the Board of Revenue affirmed the Judgment of the learned Single Member of the Board of Revenue. 18. Two writ petitions were preferred challenging the allotment made in favour of Ratan Singh and Mohindra Singh. The Division Bench of the Board of Revenue affirmed the Judgment of the learned Single Member of the Board of Revenue. 18. Two writ petitions were preferred challenging the allotment made in favour of Ratan Singh and Mohindra Singh. The writ petitions were dismissed by the learned Signle Judge in limine vide order dated 14.01.1998 by upholding the finding given in the order of Board of Revenue dated 210.1994 in Revision No. 24/94 (Chanan Kaur vs. Mahendra Singh) that petitioner Chanan Kaur has no locus standi to impeach the allotment nor she can be an aggrieved person against the allotment made in favour of the respondents No. 3. The finding arrived at by the Board of Revenue regarding the petitioners locus standi operates as res-judicata between the parties, therefore, the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the order of permanent allotment made in favour of Ratan Singh and Mehendra Singh sons of Lal Singh. 19. Only one Special Appeal was preferred in the case relating to allotment made in favour of Ratan Singh. No appeal having been preferred against Judgment in S.B.C.W.P No. 133/1998 in the matter of allotment made in favour of Mahendra Sihgh, it has become final. Present Special appeal against the said order in the first instance was dismissed in limine by the Division Bench vide its order dated 28.01.1998. 20. It appears that for some reason Ratan Singh was mistaken to be brother of late Mohinder Singh, perhaps similarity of name of co-allottee Mahendra Singh and name of original allottee Mohinder Singh but as it appears that Mohinder Singh was Sunar Sikh whereas Ratan Singh and Mahendra Singh are Jat Sikhs and they are allottees of the land to the extent of 6 bighas 5 biswas each which was originally held by Mohinder Singh Sunar Sikh. However, it appears that challenge to allotment in favour of Mahendra Singh son of Lal Singh has been abandoned somewhere in the way and permanent allotment to said Mahendra Singh had become final. 21. The appellants filed an appeal before the Supreme Court of India against the order of the Division Bench dismissing the appeal in llmine by seeking special leave to appeal. The Supreme Court vide its order dated April 01, 2004, ordered to decide this special appeal afresh in the light of the observations made in the Judgment . 22. 21. The appellants filed an appeal before the Supreme Court of India against the order of the Division Bench dismissing the appeal in llmine by seeking special leave to appeal. The Supreme Court vide its order dated April 01, 2004, ordered to decide this special appeal afresh in the light of the observations made in the Judgment . 22. Honble Supreme Court noticed the plea of the appellants that the land in question was never surrendered, and, therefore, land was never available for allotment to the present allottee Ratan Singh, and opined that this issue was not examined in proper perspective. 23. Supreme Court noticing the plea of non-surrender of the temporary cultivation lease, had opined that, question of locus standi of the petitioners would ultimately depend upon the facts of the case. It was observed that, - “It is also not clear as to whether the land was surrendered by late Mohinder Singh, in whose favour it was initially allotted during his life time or by his heirs, namely the present appellants. In that connection also the stand of the respondents, including the State, is not very clear. At one stage it is sought to be argued that such allotment to landless people was meant only for personal purposes, meaning thereby such allotment will go on the death of the allottee. If that is so, it is not understandable how the question of surrender would arise and in what circumstances half of the land allotted to late Mohinder Singh would be allotted to Ratan Singh. We also find that much importance has been attached to the fact that the appellants had also applied for allotment sometime in 1994. Be that as it may, it hardly makes out any case in favour of the respondents. The appellants had raised objections against the allotment in favour of respondent No. 3 at very early stage. No inference can be drawn by the fact that they had also later applied for allotment.” 24 The Court also observed “if the fact is that late Mohinder Singh has not surrendered the land no occasion would have arisen for allotment of land to any one.” 25. As a result of the aforesaid directions of the Supreme Court, the appeal was admitted and notices were issued. 26. As a result of the aforesaid directions of the Supreme Court, the appeal was admitted and notices were issued. 26. By the order dated 05.04.2005 the parties were granted time to place on record material on the basis of which they want to support the factual foundation that the petitioners predecessor in title Shri Mohinder Singh or after his death his heirs had or had not surrendered the land in question. The petitioner were also directed to place material, if any, on which they wished to rely to support their case on this aspect. 27. This order was made on 05.04.2005, since then no fresh material has been placed on record by the petitioners/appellants. The respondents No. 2 and 3 had made their submission by filing reply respectively on 21st of April, 2005 and 4th May, 2005. Copy of the reply submitted by respondent No. 2 has also been given to respondents No. 3 Learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3 had filed reply on 3rd of May, 2005 making factual averments about the temporary cultivation lease allotment and position leading to the permanent allotment which are not divergent from reply submitted by respondent No. 2. The gist of the averments in this appeal, as we have noticed above, are that the land ad-measuring 12 bighas 10 biswas was originally allotted to Mohinder Singh Sunar Sikh on temporary cultivation lease up to 1970. The said Mohinder Singh died on 16.08.1970. Thereafter, land was allotted in favour of petitioners No. 2 and 3, two sons of late Mohinder Singh up to 1974. After 1974 temporary cultivation lease allotment in favour of petitioners No. 2 and 3 was not renewed and the land was shown as Government land. Respondent No. 3 Ratan Singh applied for the allotment of the land on temporary cultivation lease basis. On that application he was allotted 6 bighas 5 biswas of land in the year 1975 which continued up to 1990. In the year 1991 the respondent No. 3 applied for the permanent allotment of this land and on 07.08.1991 permanent allotment was made to respondent No. 3 permanently on the basis of his being a landless person. Proceedings followed, thereafter as we have noticed above in detail. 28. Simultaneous proceedings in respect of allotment made in favour Mahendra Singh, brother of Ratan Singh were taken which also we have noticed. Proceedings followed, thereafter as we have noticed above in detail. 28. Simultaneous proceedings in respect of allotment made in favour Mahendra Singh, brother of Ratan Singh were taken which also we have noticed. Learned Counsel for the appellants candidly stated that after expiry, in the year 1974, of the temporary cultivation lease in favour of sons of Mohinder Singh Sunkar Sikh, no application was ever submitted. 29. On these premises following position becomes clear that on expiry of temporary lease in favour of Gurdayal Singh and Santok Singh in 1974 it was not renewed for want of any renewal application Therefore, from 1975 to 1990 allottee Ratan Singh and Mahendra Singh cultivated the land measuring 6.5 bighas each as T.C. holders on the terms and conditions of the Temporary Cultivation Conditions, 1995, which were granted at a time for maximum period up to 5 years and renewed from time to time. Appellants No. 2 and 3 were T.C. holder up to 1974 and thereafter they were not in possession. 30. Under Rule 18(3) on the expiry/termination of the existing T.C. lease, unless lease is renewed, the tenant shall leave the land and surrender it peacefully to Government and during the concluding season of the tenancy shall not sow any crop of the succeeding season but shall permit any person duly authorised by the Collector to cultivate crops on the said lands. 7.31. The chain of events clearly indicate that temporary cultivation lease in favour of appellants No. 2 and 3 expired in the year 1974 and in view of the statutory provisions of condition No. 18 (3) of Conditions of 1955, the surrender took place when no renewal application was made and the land was allotted to new applicants on T.C. lease. The fact that the T.C. lease allotment was challenged in favour of the present allottees by the present petitioner appellants but it was rejected by the Revenue Appellate Authority long back and no further proceedings in pursuance thereof take place fortifies this conclusion. 1.32. As a matter of fact no mention of such proceedings have been made by the petitioners in their petition. But these facts appear from the orders passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority dated 12.09.1994, and the order of the Board of Revenue dated 210.1994 and the orders of the Board of Revenue under challenge dated 26.08.1997 and 211.1997 respectively, which are all on record. But these facts appear from the orders passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority dated 12.09.1994, and the order of the Board of Revenue dated 210.1994 and the orders of the Board of Revenue under challenge dated 26.08.1997 and 211.1997 respectively, which are all on record. 2.33. So far as grant of temporary cultivation lease in favour of respondent in concerned, it is beyond pale of doubt. It was granted validly in his favour and that was as a result of surrender of temporary cultivation lease in terms of Condition No. 18 (3) of the Conditions of 1955. It was not a case of pre-mature surrender of continuing cultivation lease by any one. The case is of specific grant of temporary cultivation lease on expiry of earlier one after death of Mohinder Singh. As according to the appellants also, no renewal application was made on expiry of their T.C. Lease, the land was required to be surrendered as per condition No. 18(3) of the Conditions of 1955 and that is the reason land was recorded as Government land in the year 1975 and being available for grant. Application for temporary cultivation by respondents No. 3 Ratan Singh in this appeal and his brother Mahendra Singh were granted in the year 1975. Both new T.C. lease allottees are not connected with the deceased, Mohinder Singh Sunar Sikh, or his family. 3.34. In view of the aforesaid facts and operation of law, conclusion which is inevitable that the land of temporary cultivation lease in favour of sons of Mohinder Singh vested in Government, was available for fresh allotment, and was validly granted on temporary cultivation lease if favour of respondent No. 3 and the petitioners have lost their right to claim in priority on the basis of said temporary cultivation lease. 4.35. Reliance placed on Rule 6-A of Rules of 1956, is also in our opinion of not much assistance to the appellants. Rule 6-A needs continuous possession of the applicants when the application for permanent grant is made. When the appellants made application for permanent allotment in 1994, after the permanent allotment was made in favour of Ratan Singh and Mahendra Singh sons of Lal Singh, the petitioners were not in possession since 1974, and had made no attempt even to make an application for permanent allotment on the basis of original T.C. lease. When the appellants made application for permanent allotment in 1994, after the permanent allotment was made in favour of Ratan Singh and Mahendra Singh sons of Lal Singh, the petitioners were not in possession since 1974, and had made no attempt even to make an application for permanent allotment on the basis of original T.C. lease. The petitioners also did not show any interest in the renewal of lease in their favour, on their challenge in favour of temporary cultivation of respondent was rejected and no benefit can be derived on the basis of provisions of T.C. holder for the permanent allotment made in 1991 when the appellants made application for permanent allotment in 1994. The position would have been different if the appellant continued as T.C. holder or in possession at the time of allotment made in favour of respondent. That clearly being not the position on the admitted facts, no relief can be granted to the appellants in these proceedings. 5.36. Moreover, proceedings for permanent allotment made in favour of Mahendra Singh by present appellants on the very same grant having become final against appellants, allowing the appeal will bring into existence two inconsistent orders on the same facts. 6.37. In view of aforesaid, this appeal is devoid of substance, the appeal falls and it is hereby dismissed. 38. No costs.