Judgment Rajesh Balia, J.-Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, we find that there is no merit in this appeal. 2. The petition was directed against the order of the Special Judge (IIIrd), Pong Dam Oustees, Sriganganagar, the Special Tribunal appointed under the directions of the Court for reviewing the cases of cancellation of the allotment made in favour of the Pong Dam Oustees under the Rajasthan Colonisation Allotment and Sale of Govt. Land to Pong Dam Oustees and Their Transferees in the Indira Gandhi Canal Colony Area, Rules, 1972. The directions of the Supreme Court for setting up of Special Tribunal for reviewing the case of cancellation of allotment came in the wake of challenge to amendment made in Rule 6 by which the period before which the allottee has no right to sell the allotted land was extended from 20 years to 25 years from the date of allotment vide the amendment which came into force w.e.f. 13.03.1992. The extension of period of restriction on right to sell for the Pong Dam Oustees was held to be ultra vires after considering the background in which these provisions came to be substituted. Considering that many allotments of the land have been cancelled because of that reason and without notice to other side, a chance was given for reviewing of such cases clearly envisaging that the finding recorded by such Tribunal shall be final and will not be subjected to challenge. 3. From reply before Reviewing Authority, it is clear that the land was sold by the allottee within 20 years. That means within the period envisaged under Rule 6 before the amendment which has been struck down by the Supreme Court and full money was also paid by the present petitioner to the allottee before he died in 1989. 4. In that view of the matter, the proceedings under Sections 6 and 8 of the Act losses its significance and the question whether the transmission of the right of the Ghair Khatedari tenant on his death by testamentary document to his successor does not arise in this case. Since, the order of the Special Tribunal was found clearly on the basis of admission made by the transferee of the allottee in his written statement, no interference is called for and the petition has rightly been dismissed by learned Single Judge vide Judgment under appeal. 5. Since, the order of the Special Tribunal was found clearly on the basis of admission made by the transferee of the allottee in his written statement, no interference is called for and the petition has rightly been dismissed by learned Single Judge vide Judgment under appeal. 5. Therefore, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.