Judgment S.K. Keshote, J.-In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for grant of following relief , "(i) quashing the allotment order dated 19.08.1989; (ii) order/direct the State Government/Collector to allot 17 bighas of land in Nangla Roond continuously in possession of the humble petitioner and to make entry in Revenue Record. (iii) Any other appropriate order which may be found just and proper in the facts of the case." 2. From the record of the writ petition I find that in the prayer No. 1 the date 19.08.1989 of the order appears incorrect. It is the order, dated 19.09.1989 (Annexure 18). This is also clearly borne out from para No. 19 of the writ petition. Under the order, dated 19.09.1989 (Annexure-18) the respondent No. 4 allotted the land to eleven persons. The petitioner, in the writ petition has made reference to the allotment of the land made in favour of five persons in para No 19 of the writ petition. 3. The facts of the case as emerge from the writ petition are that the petitioner is an ex-military personnel; he is stated to have rendered glorious services to the Indian Army as Havaldaar No. 2944492 during Indo-Pak War of 1965 and 1971 and won Gallantry Award (Mention-in-Dispatch). He was rendered physically handicapped permanently. It is stated that the petitioner was recommended for allotment of 50 bigha of land; first by the District Soldier Board and then by the State Sainik Board as well as Officiating Commanding Officer of 9th Rajput Regiment. The petitioner has made reference in para No. 4 of the writ petition, to the letter, dated, 25.04.1972 (Annexure-3) of the State Government; thereunder it is mentioned that 1200 bigha of land was reserved for allotment to the families of army person of Alwar District, who had sacrificed their lives in Indo-Pak Wars of 1965 and 1971 as well as to the Jawans rendered physically handicapped permanently. 4. The petitioner submitted that he is entitled to 50 bigha of land as per the order aforesaid of the State Government. The reference has been made to another order of the State Government, dated 30.06.1973 (Annexure-4) and tried to give out the expression as if thereunder the Government has directed the collector for allotment of 50 bigha of land of the petitioner. 5. The reference has been made to another order of the State Government, dated 30.06.1973 (Annexure-4) and tried to give out the expression as if thereunder the Government has directed the collector for allotment of 50 bigha of land of the petitioner. 5. In para No. 6 of the writ petition the petitioner submitted that the Collector, Alwar, under its order, dated 05.09.1972 (Annexure-5) allotted 25 bigha of land to the petitioner in Village Nangla Roond. The petitioners claim is that he is entitled for allotment of 50 bigha of land under two different heads, first 25 bigha for Shaurya Padak i.e. Gallantry Award and second 25 bigha for being rendered physically handicapped permanently during Indo-Pak Wars of 1965 and 1971. The petitioner, in support of his case, has made reference to another order of the Government, dated 07.09.1973 (Annexure-6). 6. The petitioner submitted representation to the Collector, Alwar and also to the Revenue Authorities for allotment of 25 bigha more land. The Collector, Alwar, under the order, dated 111.1973 (Annexure-7), allotted him eight bigha of land. Eight bigha of land was allotted to the petitioner, as he was rendered physically handicapped permanently during Indo-Pak-Wars of 1965 and 1971. The petitioner was not satisfied with this allotment and he went on making representations. 7. The petitioner, in para No. 10 of the writ petition, submitted that he started cultivating 17 bigha of land adjoining to his fields (25 bigha of land allotted), which was available for allotment to ex-army personnel only. As per his averments, that has been done in the year 1972. 8. It appears that the action has been taken against him for this unauthorized act by the revenue authorities and penalty has also been imposed upon him. 9. In support of his proof of possession over 17 bigha of land the petitioner made reference to certain documents, detailed out in prar No. 13 of the writ petition. 10. The S.D.O. Behror, under its letter, dated 012.1985 (Annexure-13), informed the petitioner that he had already been allotted 33 (25+8) bigha of land and he cannot be allotted further land; and that 17 bigha of land, on which he made unauthorized encroachment, has been allotted to other five person named in para No. 19 of the writ petition as well as in the application (Annexure-17) submitted by the petitoner to the Superintendent of Police, Alwar. He challenged the allotment of the land made in favour of these five person, before the Additional Collector, District Alwar, which was accepted and it was ordered that patta of the said land issued in favour of these five persons might not be issued in their favour nor the possession thereof be given to them and that 17 bigha of land be allotted to the petitioner. 11. Those five persons took the matter to the Revenue Appellate Authority, Alwar, by way of filing appeals, which were allowed and the order, dated 23.03.1993, of the Additional Collector, Alwar, has been set aside and affirmed the decision, dated 19.08.1989, of the allotment committee allotting the 17 bigha of land in favour of those five persons. The matter was sent to the allotment committee with the direction that in case any land had kept reserved for allotment to ex-army personnel and upon the petitioner submitted that application for allotment of 17 bigha of land, the matter may be considered in accordance with the law. 12. The petitioner challenged the order of the Revenue appellate Authority, Alwar, before, the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer. The petitioner submitted the copy of the order, dated 09.09.1993 (Annexure-22) of the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer, on the record of the writ petition. The learned Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer, admitted the appeal and ordered the parties to maintain status quo with respect to the land in dispute, as it existed on 19.09.1989. 13. The petitioner filed the writ petition on 29.09.1994. More than eleven years have already passed the petitioner has not given out as to what ultimately decided in the appeal filed by him before, the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer. 14. The respondents filed reply to the writ petition and raised two preliminary objections; first that against the order, dated 09.09.1993, of the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer, the writ petition is not maintainable as it is an order of admission of the appeal only; secondly the petitioner has challenged the order dated 19.08.1989 but the beneficiaries thereof have not been impleaded parties to the writ petition. The respondents have also contested the writ petition on merits. 15. The respondents have also contested the writ petition on merits. 15. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is entitled for allotment of 50 bigha of land; 25 bigha for Gallantry Award and 25 bigha for being rendered physically handicapped permanently. It is submitted that for Gallantry Award the petitioner had been allotted 25 bigha of land but as regards to rest 25 bigha of land for being rendered physically handicapped permanently during Indo-Pak-Wars of 1965 and 1971 he has been allotted only 8 bigha of land, which is illegal. 16. It has next been contended that 1200 bigha of land was reserved for allotment thereof to the ex-army personnel, but the petitioner has been allotted the land deficit 17 bigha. 17. It has further been contended that a soldier, who fought for the Nation and sacrificed his life to the extent where he has been rendered physically handicapped permanently and that he has been awarded by Gallantry Award, but instead of honouring him by allotment of 50 bigha of land, the respondents have dealt him in an insulting way. 18. Lastly it is contended that the allotment of the land made to the five persons referred in para No. 19 of the writ petition, was illegal. In his submission the petitioner is in possession of 17 bigha of land in Nangla Roond and necessary entry thereof may be made in the revenue record in his favour. 9.19. Shri J.K. Agarwal, the learned Additional Government Advocate, contended that the petitioner has not impleaded those five persons, to whom the said 17 bigha of land has been allotted, as party respondents to the writ petition. In his submission these five persons are necessary party to the writ petition and in case the prayer No. 1 is granted in favour of the petitioner it will adversely affect their civil rights i.e. allotment of land made in their favour will go and thus the writ petition deserves dismissal only on the ground non-joinder of necessary party. 10.20. It is next contended that the allotment of land in dispute in favour of those five persons is subject matter of challenge before the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer, and thus the challenge to the order of allotment of land made in favour of those persons is not maintainable. 10.20. It is next contended that the allotment of land in dispute in favour of those five persons is subject matter of challenge before the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer, and thus the challenge to the order of allotment of land made in favour of those persons is not maintainable. It is a case where the petitioner has availed of the alternative remedy and thus this writ petition is not maintainable. In his submission the petitioner was entitled for allotment of land for the gallantry award only, still he being rendered physically handicapped permanently in Indo-Pak-Wars of 1965 and 1971, has been allotted 8 bigha of land. There is no rule or any order/circular of the Government entitling the petitioner for allotment of each 25 bigha of land under both heads. 121. Lastly it is contended that the land was not reserved for allotment to ex-army personnel, but it was to be allotted to ex-army personnel as well as the poor landless persons to ensure their livelihood. The allotment of 17 bigha of land was made in favour of three landless Scheduled Caste persons, fourth was Brahmin and fifth was Soni by caste. No doubt, the petitioner rendered the valuable services for the Nation and being rendered physically handicapped permanently, but, in his submission, it does not mean that he is to be allotted fifty bigha of land at the cost of landless persons. 22. In rejoinder to the contentions raised by Shri J.K. Agarwal, the learned Additional Government Advocate, Shri Mohan Singh Raghaw, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the appeals filed by the petitioner before the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer, against allotment of said 17 bigha of land to five persons, have already been dismissed and against that order of the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan Ajmer, the petitioner filed the writ petitions listed alongwith this writ petition and therein all the aforesaid five persons are parties and thus the writ petition does not suffer from the defect of non-joinder of necessary parties. 23. As regards to the second contention raised by the learned Additional Government Advocate that the petitioner has availed of alternative remedy, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has also prayed for a direction to the respondents for allotment of 17 bigha of land. 24. 23. As regards to the second contention raised by the learned Additional Government Advocate that the petitioner has availed of alternative remedy, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has also prayed for a direction to the respondents for allotment of 17 bigha of land. 24. I have given my anxious and thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the entire record of the writ petition. 25. The petitioner, against the order of allotment of the land in dispute to private respondents, filed an appeal before the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer and that appeal was pending on the date on which the present writ petition was filed. It is not the case where the petitioner has alternative remedy in the matter but in fact he has availed of the same. The petitioner filed the appeals and this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India cannot be entertained on the same facts and cause. Where the petitioner is permitted to file the writ petition and to continue with these proceedings on the same facts and cause, which is the subject matter of consideration before the appellate authority, it would tantamount to pursue two parallel remedies at the same time in the same matter, which is not permissible to him. In the case of Bombay Metropolitan Region Development Authority, Bombay vs. Gokak Patel Volkart Limited & Ors., 1995 (1) SCC642, their Lordships of the Honble Supreme Court held that where an alternative remedy is available, ordinarily the writ petition should not be entertained and more-so in the case where the alternative remedy had been availed of and the appeal was pending. 26. 26. It is true that during the pendency of the writ petition the appeals filed by the petitioner against the order of allotment of the land by the respondent State of the private respondents, has been decided but it will have no bearing or it is not material as well as not of any help to the petitioner on two grounds; first the private respondents, to whom the land, in dispute, was allotted, are not parties to this writ petition and secondly the decision given by the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer, in the appeals filed by the petitioner against the private respondents, has been dismissed and against that decision the writ petitions have been filed, thus the present writ petition, otherwise also has become infructuous. For the same relief and cause of action, grievance and relief , in case the petition is permitted to prosecute by the petitioner, it will amount availing of two parallel remedies in the Court and that is not permissible. 27. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has led much emphasis on the ground that the petitioner is praying for the relief in the writ petition for a direction to the respondent State and its officers to allot him 17 bigha of land in the village Nangla Roond, on which he is continuously in possession, and to make necessary entry in this regard in the revenue record. Through very strongly this point has been pressed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner but this relief cannot be granted to the petitioner, leaving apart the question whether on merits this claim of the petitioner is sustainable or not, unless the order, dated 19.08.1989, under which the land has been allotted to the private respondents, is quashed and set aside. So long as this order stands, the land is not available for allotment to the petitioner and the second prayer made in the writ petition also cannot be granted. The second prayer is the consequential prayer which can be considered only when the Court is satisfied that the first relief prayed for in the writ petition can be granted to the petitioner and that is possible only after the order dated 19.08.1989 is quashed and set aside. The second prayer made in the writ petition cannot be granted to the petitioner. 28. The second prayer made in the writ petition cannot be granted to the petitioner. 28. Yet there is another ground on which the second prayer made by the petitioner in the writ petition deserves no consideration what to say to grant the same. In case the second prayer made by the petitioner in the writ petition is granted in favour of the petitioner, it will result in setting aside of the order of allotment of the land to the private respondents and that too behind their back and without affording to them an opportunity of hearing as they are not party to the writ petition. The Court, sitting under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, in its extra ordinary equitable jurisdiction, will not pass any order or grant any relief to a litigant which may result in setting aside of the order passed in favour of the persons who are not party to the litigation. An order passed behind the back of the persons who are to deprive of the benefits granted to them by the State, is an order void ab initio being made in violation of the principles of natural justice. The Court sitting under Article 226 of 227 of the Constitution of India i.e. in its extra ordinary equitable jurisdiction will not perpetuate an illegality. Taking into consideration the matter from any angle and aspect I have no hesitation to hold that this writ petition is not maintainable on the ground that the petitioner has not only an efficacious alternative remedy of appeal but the same has been availed of by him and secondly behind the back of persons in whose favour the impugned order has been passed, the petitioner is praying for quashing and setting aside thereof . 29. I have also considered the matter on merits whether the prayer made by the petitioner for allotment of 17 bigha of land in Nangla Roond is legally sustainable or not. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has been allotted 25 bigha of land under the order, dated 05.09.1972 (Annexure-5). 29. I have also considered the matter on merits whether the prayer made by the petitioner for allotment of 17 bigha of land in Nangla Roond is legally sustainable or not. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has been allotted 25 bigha of land under the order, dated 05.09.1972 (Annexure-5). The allotment of 25 bigha of land under the order aforesaid has been made to the petitioner for the gallantry award, which is also clear from the document Annexure-7, at page No. 25 of the writ petition, under which eight bigha of land purported to have been allotted to him under the Rajasthan Allotment of Land for Agricultural Purposes Rules, 1970 (for short, the Rules, 1970). 30. The grant of land to the gallantry award holder is regulated under the Rajasthan Gallantry Awards (Cash Rewards and Land Grants) Rules, 1966 (for short, the Rules, 1966). The petitioner, as per the facts of this case, falls under the category of gallantry award holder and thus he was entitled for 25 bigha of irrigated land or 50 bigha of un-irrigated land and that has been allotted to him. 3.31. The claim of the petitioner is of allotment of further 25 bigha of land on the ground that he has been rendered physically handicapped permanently in Indo-Pak Wars of 1965 and 1971. For this claim the petitioner has relied upon the documents Annexure Nos. 3 and 4 to the writ petition. Anexure-3 is the order, dated 25.04.1972 of the Government of Rajasthan, Revenue (Group III) Department, Jaipur; which is issued under the head of allotment of land of Roond Barod. Under this order 1200 bigha of land has been transferred to the Revenue Department by the Government for allotment thereof to three category of military personnel mentioned therein; under this order allotment of land was made to the dependents of 33 soldiers died in Indo-Pak War, 1971. These dependents of 33 soldiers were allotted 825 bigha of land, to each 25 bigha. Rest of the land was directed to allot to the soldiers died in Indo-Pak War, 1965 and even thereafter any land remains that was directed to allot to the soldiers who were rendered physically handicapped permanently in Indo-Pak Wars of 1965 and 1971. They were also to be allotted each 25 bigha of land. Rest of the land was directed to allot to the soldiers died in Indo-Pak War, 1965 and even thereafter any land remains that was directed to allot to the soldiers who were rendered physically handicapped permanently in Indo-Pak Wars of 1965 and 1971. They were also to be allotted each 25 bigha of land. The order nowhere contemplates nor provides that thereunder those soldiers who got 25 bigha of land for the gallantry award also eligible for allotment. The object and purpose of the order Annexure-3 is that the dependents of the soldiers who died in Indo-Pak Wars, 1965 and 1971, may get the land for their rehabilitation and if any land out of 1200 bigha remains un-allotted, the benefit are expended to those who were rendered physically handicapped permanently in Indo-Pak Wars of 1965 and 1971. It was for the rehabilitation of the soldiers who were rendered physically handicapped permanently in the Indo-Pak Wars, 1965 and 1971. It is not a statutory order but an order passed by the State Government for the benefits of the soldiers died in Indo-Pak Wars, 1965 and 1971 or rendered physically handicapped permanently, of Alwar District. 4.32. It is a specific and special order passed for the benefit of particular categories of soldiers. The statutory rules are there for grant of land to the gallantry awarded soldiers. In my opinion, the claim made by the petitioner for allotment of 25 bigha of land on the ground of his being rendered physically handicapped permanently in Indo-Pak War 1971, is not sustainable. 33. The document Annexur-4 is also of little help to the petitioner and his claim for allotment of 25 bigha of land on the ground of his being rendered physically handicapped permanently in Indo-Pak War of 1971, is difficult to accept. Under the order, dated 30.06.1973, (Annexure-4), the Collector, Alwar, though, was given direction by the State Government to take necessary action to give cash reward and to allot the land to the petitioner rendered physically handicapped permanently in Indo-Pak War, 1971. This order was passed in pursuance of the order No. DS/Rev/LR-LSB/65, dated 30.05.1965. The petitioner has not produced the copy of that order. This order was passed in pursuance of the order No. DS/Rev/LR-LSB/65, dated 30.05.1965. The petitioner has not produced the copy of that order. From the document at the most it can be inferred that the State Government has given direction for allotment of land to the petitioner on the ground that he was rendered physically handicapped permanently in Indo-Pak War, 1971 but not the land of 25 bigha. 5.34. Annexure-6 is another document on which the petitioner has placed strong reliance to sustain his claim of allotment of 25 bigha of land on the ground of his being rendered physically handicapped permanently in Indo-Pak War, 1971. The State Government has directed to the Collector, Alwar that the case of the petitioner may be considered for giving the benefit of allotment of land under both heads i.e. for the gallantry award as well as for being rendered physically handicapped permanently in Indo-Pak War, 1971. 6.35. As regards grant of land to him as being gallantry award holder, specific rule are there under which the provision has been made for allotment of 25 bigha of land and that has been allotted to the petitioner. But the claim of the petitioner for allotment of further 25 bigha of land on the ground of his being rendered physically handicapped permanently in Indo-Pak War, 1971, it is, as said earlier, not sustainable on the basis of the order of the Government of 1972. but as there was pressure on the Government for the reasons not come on the record, the Collector, Alwar, was kind enough to the petitioner to allot 8 bigha of land on the ground of he being rendered physically handicapped permanently in Indo-Pak War, 1971. This allotment of land has been made to the petitioner with reference to the Rules, 1970. Under the Rules, 1970, as borne out from the scheme thereof , the eight bigha of land could not have been allotted to the petitioner, as he was not eligible for allotment of single inch of agriculture land under the said Rules. 7.36. Under the Rules, 1970 the allotment of the agriculture land can be made only to the landless agriculturists defined in the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 ( for short, the Act, 1955) or the beneficiaries of the integrated rural development programme. 7.36. Under the Rules, 1970 the allotment of the agriculture land can be made only to the landless agriculturists defined in the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 ( for short, the Act, 1955) or the beneficiaries of the integrated rural development programme. Clause 26A of Section 5 of the Act, 1955 defines the landless persons, which mean an agriculturist by profession who cultivate