Judgment Prakash Tatia, J.-Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved against the order dated 112.1998 passed by the Commissioner, Colonisation, Bikaner in case No. 83/1996 by which the learned Commissioner, Colonisation, Bikaner set aside the allotment of land which was made in favour of the petitioner Smt. Hakima. It appears that the land was allotted to Smt. Hakima, resident of district Jaisalmer on 27.1993. Proceedings were initiated against the petitioner allottee on the ground that the petitioner is found involved in anti-national activity, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for allotment of land. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned District Magistrate submitted the report wherein it is clearly mentioned that the petitioner is not found involved in any anti-national activity. According to learned Counsel for the petitioner as per Sub-rule (6) of Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Colonisation (Allotment and Sale of Government Land in the Indira Gandhi Canal Colony Area) Rules, 1975 the report of the District Magistrate with respect to the involvement of the allottee in anti-national activity is binding and the same is required to be accepted whereas the learned Commissioner has rejected the District Magistrates report about the petitioner. 4. It appears that the order dated 112.1998 which was upheld by the Board of Revenue by order dated 210.2002 was recorded after the learned Commissioner considered the report of the District Magistrate and found that the report is contradictory and, therefore, held that the petitioner gave shelter to her sons who are involved in anti-national activity. 5. In view of the above, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in case the matter is re-enquired then the petitioner may submit her proof before the learned District Magistrate to show that she herself is not involved in any anti-national activity and the matter may be decided afresh. 6. In view of the fact that the report of the District Magistrate was found to be self -contradictory and the learned Colonisation Commissioner observed that the basis of the report holding the petitioner not involved in anti-national activity has been recorded to create evidence only, the order passed by the two Courts below dated 112.1998 and dated 210.2002 (Annexures -11 and 12) deserve to be set aside so that the matter may be decided afresh and the petitioner may be given an opportunity to place her case before the District Magistrate. The District Magistrate may pass appropriate order and submit report before the Colonisation Commissioner, Bikaner who may re-hear the parties and decide the matter of allotment of land to the petitioner after taking into consideration the report of the District Magistrate. The petitioner shall submit a certified copy of the order of this Court before the Colonisation Commissioner, Bikaner who may pass appropriate order and obtain the report of the District Magistrate as provided in Sub-rule (6) of Rule 16. 7. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. The orders dated 112.1998 passed by the Colonisation Commissioner, Bikaner and the order dated 210.2002 passed by the appellate authority are set aside. The matter is remanded to the learned Colonisation Commissioner, Bikaner to decide the matter afresh.