ARVIND, MEMBER—These are two appeals filed under section 23(2) Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agriculture Holdings Act, 1973 against the order dated 22.4.2000 passed by learned Addl. Collector, Kota. (2). The matter in dispute, parties in the appeals and the facts of the appels are identical. Therefore, these appeals are being disposed of by this single judgment, copy which may be placed in each file. (3). Briefly, the facts of these cases as per the appeals are that lands of khasra No. 431 area 0.35 hectare and khasra No. 431 area 0.40 hectare were the khatedari lands of Ladi Ji Sahab Thikana Kachanavad and after the death of Ladi Ji Sahab Kachanavda it came in the name of one Shri Amar Singh. It is being claimed by the appellant that on this land appellants father late Shri Ghasi was recorded as sub-tenant and during the lifetime of his father this land was under cultivation and after the death of his father he and his brothers have been cultivating this land. As per the operation of Rajasthan Tenancy Act the appellant automatically became tenant of this land but by mistake khatedari rights were not conferred.—Proceedings under the Ceiling Act against Amar Singh were initiated and in the process the land which was in possession of the appellant was surrendered by the assessee. That the assessee could not surrender this land because this land had already been in possession of the appellant and by operation of law the appellant could have been declared as khatedar by the Government but this was also not done and later on this land was allotted to the respondent No. 1 by allotment order dated 2.2.93 but the knowledge of this fact came to the appellant on 11.7.99 and then immediately certified copies were taken and action for getting the allotments cancelled were taken under section 17(4) but learned Addl. Collector, Kota rejected the request of the appellant by his order dated 22.4.2000. Aggrieved against this order, these appeals are before this court. (4). Arguing in support of the appeals, the contention of the learned advocate of the appellant is that the decision of the learned Addl. Collector is against the facts and law and it deserves to be set aside. Aggrieved against this order, these appeals are before this court. (4). Arguing in support of the appeals, the contention of the learned advocate of the appellant is that the decision of the learned Addl. Collector is against the facts and law and it deserves to be set aside. He also argued that it is necessary that before any allotment is made a proclamation order has to be issued and it has been mentioned by learned Addl. Collector that the appellant could not prove that a negative cannot be proved we could have only proved in case any such proclamation was made. That the Advisory Committee was expected to ensure that the allotments were as per law and only the Addl. D.D.O. and Tehsildar, Administrator Gram Panchayat recommended the allotment and this allotment is vitiated. The learned Addl. Collector not only rejected my request but he also ordered that possession should be given to the allottee. Such an order is beyond jurisdiction. He also argued that only by acquisition it cannot be presumed that the land which was allotted is free from encumbrances. The land has been in our possession since svt. 2007 and we have already gone into a declaratory suit for getting this land declared as our khatedari land. We were not party to either acquisition proceedings. Hence, we are a third party and we cannot be deprived of our rights for claiming a declaration. State can consider for allotting another lands to the allottees if the State has received money in lieu of allotment. We are also poor people like the allottees and our priority should also be considered. Our request for condonation of delay has already been considered by learned Addl. Collector, hence our request for cancellation of the allotment on which we have been in possession should be considered. I am already a defacto khatedar by operation of law and I am not a khatedar in the jamabandi which is a record of right but for that purpose I have already prayed for declaration in the competent court and I am hopeful of getting declaration in my favour, hence the allotment orders may kindly be set aside so that my claim for getting declaration is not vitiated. (5). (5). In reply to the arguments, learned advocate on behalf of the respondent No. 1 argued that the disputed land has been acquired under the New Ceiling Law and such an acquisition by operation of law is free from all encumbrances. The claim of the appellant cannot be accepted because if he says that he became khatedar by operation of law, what was he doing for the last 40 years. He had enough time of 40 years to get himself declared as khatedar but in fact he could not get himself declared khatedar shows that he does not have any rightful claim. He has not come with any certified copy of any record of right where he was recorded as a sub-tenant, only some photocopies of some khasra girdawaris cannot be admitted in favour of his claim. The status of the appellant is very much of a trespasser and a trespasser cannot claim any right on the government land. He invited our attention to an authority of Honble High Court as reported in 2001 RRD page 437 and argued that learned Addl. Collector has rightly ordered eviction of the trespasser and restoration of possession to the allottees. He also invited our attention to 2001 RRD page 520, where it has been held that Ceiling Law is a special law and the acquisition proceedings will override any order of the Asstt. Collector in declaring khatedari rights—-Where in this case there is no declaration in favour of the appellant. He also argued that even in cases in which khatedari rights were declared the land which had already been recorded in the name of the State and allotment was made, it was held that "State is free to allot this land in accordance with civil law and rules made thereunder". Referring to 2001 RRD page 501, he also argued that land was allotted treating the land as unoccupied land and the appellant has no right over that land. He also argued that on the day when the allotments were made there was no request for regularisation of the possession by the appellant and it proves that they had no old possession. Had he had an old possession he could have very well made a request for regularisation and since he failed to make any effort for regularisation he is not entitled to challenge the allotments. Had he had an old possession he could have very well made a request for regularisation and since he failed to make any effort for regularisation he is not entitled to challenge the allotments. In support of his argument he invited our attention to 1994 RRD page 381. For ready reference Head note B is being reproduced:— "(B) Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Land for Agricultural Purposes) Rules, 1970—(a) Rule 3—Land in possession of trespasser is available for allotment as unoccupied land if no application for regularisation of trespass has been made or is pending at the time of allotment". He also argued that the claim of the appellant that he was recorded as sub-tenant in the record of rights has not been supported anywhere because he has failed to produce any jamabandi in which he was recorded as a sub-tenant and his claim is not being supported by the document of land record. In case the appellant is aggrieved by the acquisition under the Ceiling Law the right course for him was to challenge the assessment order made under the Ceiling Law and he had no right to challenge the allotment order because land has been allotted to the respondent No. 1 only when it was recorded as a government land. He also argued that the allotments cannot be cancelled because this land was not sought through fraud or misrepresentation and allotments were made on the advice of the advisory committee and there was no flaw in the whole process. The appellant has failed to prove the allegation that proclamation was not made. He who alleges must prove and his allegation of non-issue of proclamation has not been proved whereas it was his duty to prove. He also argued that these were not free allotment and these allotments were made by charging reserved price by the government. In both cases reserved price against allotments has been paid and not even a single instalment is due. He also argued that the appellants claim that he was sub-tenants of 24 bighas whereas allotments, which have been made are not more than 5 bighas, hence even if for the sake of arguments we reduce this 5 bighas out of 24 bighas even then 19 bighas should remain with the appellant, hence it is not even a case of equity. Hence the appeal of the appellant needs to be dismissed with cost. (6). Hence the appeal of the appellant needs to be dismissed with cost. (6). Arguing in support of allotments made by the allotment committee learned Addl. Govt. Advocate Shri R.K. Gupta argued that the land was acquired under a special law which overrides other provisions of general law and also the acquisition proceedings have not been challenged. The appellant has no prima facie case to challenge the allotments. He has neither been recorded in the jamabandi as sub-tenant nor has he got himself declared as a khatedar, as such he has no right to challenge the allotments. If he challenges the allotments it in the capacity of a trespasser, the status of a trespasser cannot be recognised against an allottee who has been allotted land on reserved price with due process of law. As such, the appeal needs to be dismissed. (7). Having heard the arguments, having perused the record and having respectfully perused the authorities of the Honble Courts in this respect, I come to the following conclusions:— (i) 2001 RRD 437 (supra) is very much directly relevant. Honble High Court in this authority has decided the principle that:— "Raj. Land Revenue (Allotment of Land for Agricultural Purposes) Rules, 1970, Rules 4, 9, 10 and 13—Allotment of land to landless person (Resp. No. 5).—Petitioners (having less than 15 bighas land and falling within definition of landless persons) are in possession of land in question as rank trespasser— Held, the land was available for allotment to resp. No. 5 under the Rules-Trespasser has no right, title and interest in the land—Allotment Committee may legitimately decline to allot land to trespassers even if they come within definition of landless persons—Further observed that in the matter of allotment of agrl. land preference should be given to those landless persons who are not possession any agrl. land at all—Before making allotment of land, trespassers should be evicted therefrom—In these writ petitions, petitioners (being trespassers) are directed to hand over possession of land in dispute to Tehsildar, to be given into possession of allottee-Respondent No. 5". The facts of these appeals are directly governed by this authority and I have no option but to follow this authority respectfully. (ii) The appellant has not been able to justify the delay or lapse for not getting his right declared as a khatedar for a long period of 40 years. The facts of these appeals are directly governed by this authority and I have no option but to follow this authority respectfully. (ii) The appellant has not been able to justify the delay or lapse for not getting his right declared as a khatedar for a long period of 40 years. Before the allotments this land was recorded as government land and till allotments took place he never came to the government with a request for regularisation of his possession. As such, his status as on today is nothing more than that of a trespasser and he has no rightful claim to challenge the allotments made. As on today we cannot presume that the appellant may get himself declared as khatedar but even if we presume then the authority which is most relevant in this case is 2001 RRD 520 in which it has been decided that "Ceiling law is a special law which overrides general law" and as such the position is that unless the appellant challenges the action taken under the Ceiling Act no relief is claimable against the allotment order. (iii) The land was acquired under the Ceiling Law and the appellant made no objection against that acquisition and he came with an objection against the allotments that too after a lapse of 6 years after the allotments. In case he claims to have become khatedar by operation of law he has not been able to explain as to Why was he has been sleeping for long 40 years and did not claim any declaration of khatedari rights. (iv) Allotments have been made by the allotting authority on the recommendation of the advisory committee. The objections raised by the appellant are not supported by evidence. (8). In view of the conclusions above, the appeals do not deserve to be accepted. These appeals, therefore, are rejected and order of learned Addl. Collector, Kota dated 22.4.2000 is upheld. No order as to costs. Pronounced.