JUDGMENT 1. 1. The appellant who already had 31 bighas of land in his Khatedari, claims that the allotment of another 3 bighas of land to him in the capacity of 'landless person' could not have been cancelled. 2. Contextual facts depict that the Sub Divisional Officer Tonk on June 30, 1975 allotted the land bearing khasra No. 641 measuring 3 Bighas situated in village Lambe to appellant under Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Land for Agricultural Purposes) Rules, 1970 (for short 1970 Rules') on an application made by the appellant showing him as 'landless person'. The Collector Tonk cancelled the allotment under Rule 14(4) of 1970 Rules on the ground that the SDO alone had no authority to allot the land. The appeal preferred by the appellant against the said order was dismissed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Ajmer, Camp Tonk. The second appeal.and review petition filed by the appellant under the provisions of Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 were also dismissed and it was held that the allotment was ab initio, illegal since it was made by the SDO without the advice of members of the Advisory Committee. Aforementioned orders were assailed by the appellant by filing writ petition under Article 226 but the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. Hence this special appeal. 3. Mr. Sanjay Mehrishi, learned counsel for the appellants, canvassed that the appellant could not have been dispossessed since he had been cultivating the land for over a period of two decades and he did not procure allotment of land by giving false declaration. Reliance is placed on Brij Lal v. Board of Revenue, AIR 1994 SC 1128 , Tej Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (1994) 4 SCC 575 , Dalpat Singh v. The Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, (1994) 4 SCC 575 Dalpat Singh v. The Board of Revenue, 1999 RRD 128 and Ghasi Ram v. Board of Revenue, 2001 RRD 184 . 4. We find no merit in the argument of learned counsel. It appears from the material on record that the appellant prior to the allotment of land in question already had in his khatedari 31 bighas of land. Ram Dayal Patwari on the application of the appellant made endorsement to this effect, but the 30 SDO ignored the endorsement and flouting the provisions contained in 1970 Rules passed order of allotment. It appears from the material on record that the appellant prior to the allotment of land in question already had in his khatedari 31 bighas of land. Ram Dayal Patwari on the application of the appellant made endorsement to this effect, but the 30 SDO ignored the endorsement and flouting the provisions contained in 1970 Rules passed order of allotment. Evidently no advice was sought from the Advisory Committee as was mandatory under Rule 13 of 1970 Rules, according to which the allotment had to be made by the Sub Divisional Officer in consultation with an Advisory Committee consisting of MLA, Pradhan, Sarpanch and Vikas Adhikari. Neither the minutes were written under Rule 13(5) nor the proclamation under Rule 7 was issued. The land was to be allotted to landless person under Rule 17, but the appellant was not a landless person as defined under Section 26A of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 and already had about 31 bighas of land in his khatedari. The appellant thus procured the allotment by giving false declaration that he was a landless person, therefore, allotment of land made in his name was rightly cancelled. 5. For these reasons, we do not find any merit in the instant special appeal and it stands accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs.Special Appeal Dismissed. *******