Honble BALIA, J.—The facts which are not in dispute are that vide communication dtd. 19.6.1969, the Collector, Jalore was conveyed sanction under Section 102 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1956) for allotment of 5000 square yards of land for industrial purposes in Khasra No.2386 in Bhinmal town to Sh. Harinarayan Agarwal predecessor in title of present petitioner subject to usual conditions against the transfer and subletting of the land in question. The allotment was made on the prevailing market price of the land to be ascertained by the Collector and on payment of full price, the possession of the land was to be delivered to the allottee. In furtherance of the aforesaid sanction, the Collector, Jalore passed an order on11.8.1969 by which said Sh. Harinarayan Agarwal was allotted 5000 sq. yards of land for industrial purpose in Bhinmal town. The price was determined at 0.50 paisa per square yard. On payment of full price, possession of land was to be delivered. In furtherance of order dtd. 18.8.1969, in pursuance of the directions issued by the Collector vide communication dtd. 13.8.1969, the applicant deposited Rs.2500/- vide challan dtd. 16.8.1969. and possession of the land was delivered to him on 5.9.1969. Thereafter vide communication dtd. 18.1.1972, and Hari Narayan was informed that allotment made in his favour has been cancelled and he should hand over possession to the State failing which he shall be forcibly dispossessed. 2. In all these communication, reference was made to 5000 sq. yards of land allotted to Sh. Hari Narayan. 3. The order of cancellation was made subject matter of challenge by way of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 319/1972. It was in reply to the writ petition that stand was taken by the State Government for the first time that the petitioner was allotted the land in term of sq. yards to be measured equal to 2 ft. x 2 ft., but he took possession of the land calculated at one standard yard equal to 3 ft. x 3 ft., which means the petitioner encroached upon more than total land which was allotted to him. Thus, the petitioner was guilty of trespass and therefore, he is not entitled to get any relief in the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. 4. x 3 ft., which means the petitioner encroached upon more than total land which was allotted to him. Thus, the petitioner was guilty of trespass and therefore, he is not entitled to get any relief in the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. 4. Notwithstanding raising this ground by raising controversy of measurement of square yard to be taken as 2 x 2 ft. i.e. 4 sq. ft. instead of standard yard to be taken as 2 x 2 ft. i.e. 4 sq. ft. instead of standard measure of 3 x 3 sq. ft. during the course of hearing, the contentions raised on behalf of the respondents for non-suiting the petitioner, as noticed by the learned Single Judge in his judgment dtd. 13.7.1978 by which writ petition was allowed, were as under: "(i) The petitioner did not take any step to execute the agreement in accordance with the order of allotment. (ii) The petitioner did not take any step to set up the industry in the land for which purpose the allotment had been made in his favour." 5. In other words no plea was advanced that the petitioner was granted the land only admeasuring 5000 sq. yards consisting of 20000 sq. ft. instead of standard measurement of sq. yard to be 9 sq. ft. and 5000 sq. yard shall have made 45,000 sq. ft. The petitioner is not in possession of land in excess of standard 5000 sq. yards. The writ petition was allowed and the order of cancelling allotment in favour of Hari Narayan was set aside. 6. We are further informed that appeal against the said judgment has also been dismissed. 7. Be that as it may, after the aforesaid judgment, an agreement for allotted land by the Government in favour of the allottee was executed vide Annex.6 to the writ petition which inter alia reads as under: "That the State of Rajasthan vide its order No.F2(129)Rev/B/69 dtd. 19.6.1969 has in exercise of powers u/s. 102 of Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 has sanctioned allotment of 5000 sq. yards of land for Industrial purpose in Khasra No.2386 in Bhinmal town to Shri Harinarayan Agarwal on the payment of prevailing market price of this land of the nearest abadi land." It was further stated that "That the possession of the 5000 sq. yards of land for Industrial purpose in Khasra No.2386 in Bhinmal town to Shri Harinarayan Agarwal on the payment of prevailing market price of this land of the nearest abadi land." It was further stated that "That the possession of the 5000 sq. yard (295 x 152.6) land allotted to the purchaser has also been handedover through Tehsildar, Bhinmal on 5.6.69. "That the market value of a sum of Rs. 2500/- which has been deposited by the purchaser with S.T. Bhinmal. The vendor has allotted the said plot to the said purchaser." 8. This deed was signed by the Collector and District Magistrate, Jalore. In this deed also which was executed on 19.7.1983, no mention was made of 5000 sq. yard consisting of less than standard square yard of measure and breadth and length of land was described in ft. which showed that 5000 sq. yard = 295 x 152.6 sq. ft. (45017 sq. ft.) rounded off to 45000 sq. ft. which is standard measure for sq. yards. 9. Thereafter on 23.2.1982 NOC was issued by the Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Bhinmal that it had no objection for allotment of 5000 sq. yard (3 x 3 sq. ft.) which is situated within municipal limit of Bhilwara municipality and to same effect on 16.4.1992, a certificate was issued by the Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Bhinmal that the said land which has been allotted to the petitioner has been converted into Abadi admeasuring 500 sq. yards (3 x 3 sq. ft.). 10. Vide permission letter dtd. 28.6.1982, permission for construction was issued by the Municipal Council in respect of aforesaid land. Vide communication dtd. 7.6.1985, the State Government conveyed that it had no objection in effecting change in the name of owner from M/s. Agarwal Engineering Works, Bhinmal to Nahar Industries, Bhinmal on condition that no alteration is made in the condition of allotment. It also described the land as 5000 sq. yards. 11. Vide letter dtd. 2.6.1990, permission was sought from the Government for either transfer of the land in the of Hari Sita Hotels Private Limited or to mortgage the land with the Financial Institution to secure the repayment of the loan which may be advanced to the said Private Limited Company for the proposed Hotel Project. 12. Further permission was sought vide letter dtd. 2.6.1990, permission was sought from the Government for either transfer of the land in the of Hari Sita Hotels Private Limited or to mortgage the land with the Financial Institution to secure the repayment of the loan which may be advanced to the said Private Limited Company for the proposed Hotel Project. 12. Further permission was sought vide letter dtd. 4.9.1990 (Annex.14) that since maximum limit of advancement of loan to an individual or a partnership firm is Rs. 15,00,000/-, therefore, for the purpose of obtaining loan for the Hotel project, the allotted land is required to be transferred in the name of Corporate body i.e. Hari Sita Hotel Pvt. Ltd. 13. During consideration of application for grant of permission for using the land in question for setting up a hotel, an objection was raised and the petitioner was asked to explain whether the land has been allotted to him as per measurement 3x3 sq. ft. or 2 x 2 sq. ft. The petitioner replied in response thereto that in the allotment letter, the land has been stated to be 5000 sq. yards, and in the deed executed by the Collector, the measurement of the land has been shown as 295 x 152.6 sq. ft. i.e. 44,017.5 sq. ft. and accordingly, the land allotted to the petitioner is of standard square yards i.e. to say 3 ft. x 3 ft. The land price has also been charged on the basis of standard square yard. A plan has also been sanctioned on the aforesaid measurement and therefore, from the material on record, it is proved that land allotted is of 5000 standard square yard as per the standard measurement of 3 ft. x 3 ft. The principal issue in the said communication was about the reason for delay in setting up of the industry which was explained. This finally led to passing of the order by the Minister on 9.4.1997, in which it was stated that the State Government vide its letter dated 24.10.1969 has allotted 5000 sq. yards of land and a square yard consisting of 2 x 2 sq. ft. only and the price was also determined as per that measurement, but the possession of the land has been delivered by computing the area of 5000 sq. yard admeasuring 3 ft. x 3 ft. and therefore, the applicant is in possession of excess land 25,000 sq. ft. ft. only and the price was also determined as per that measurement, but the possession of the land has been delivered by computing the area of 5000 sq. yard admeasuring 3 ft. x 3 ft. and therefore, the applicant is in possession of excess land 25,000 sq. ft. for which no price has been paid and therefore, the petitioner was required to pay price for 25,000 sq. ft. as per the conversion charges directed under the Rules of 1978. This has led to filing of writ petition No. 3596/1997 from which this appeal has arisen. 14. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition vide judgment under appeal. The learned Single Judge found : " ..........it is clear that in a earlier writ petition No. 319/72 the respondents filed reply making it clear that land allotted to the petitioner was 5000 sq. yards and one square yard was 2 x 2 sq. ft. and not 3 x 3 sq. ft. as claimed by the petitioner. Thus consistent stand has been taken by the State Government about it. In view of the above, without going into the merits of the case, this petition is required to be dismissed on the aforesaid grounds and accordingly, it is dismissed." 15. The learned Single Judge also found that apart from the fact that Sh. Hari Narain Agarwal, who is necessary and proper party is not joined as party respondent in this petition, this petition is required to be dismissed on the ground that disputed question of facts are involved in this petition. 16. We have hard the learned counsel for the parties. So far as question of Hari Narayan being necessary party is concerned, we find no substance in it. From the narration of fact, it is clear that land acquired by Hari Narayan has since been transferred to the present petitioner, a private limited company after securing permission from the State Government and that being so predecessor in title of the petitioner cannot be said to be necessary party for the purpose of prosecuting this lis so also the observation of the learned Single Judge that the petition involves disputed questions of fact is also not sustainable. We have noticed entire chronology in which allotment has taken place by describing the land in square yards as well as measure of land allotted in length and breadth has been clearly described making it a clear case of allotment of 5000 standard sq. yards. In the first letter of sanction, letter of allotment by the Collector and delivery of possession on deposit of price the unconditioned measure of 5000 sq. yards has been stated. 17. The learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on letter dated 24.10.1969 to urge that actual allotment of land was only 2 ft. x 2 ft. This letter has been issued without notice to the allottee perhaps without information to anyone as is apparent from the fact that even in the deed of allotment executed in the year 1982, no reference was made by the Collector to the letter dated 24.10.1969. 18. In the State of Rajasthan, the authorities are bound to use weight and measures in accordance with the provisions of statute which prohibits user of any other measurement than standard weight and measurement. After commencement of the Constitution, the Rajasthan State Legislature enacted Rajasthan Weight and Measures Act, 1954. Under Section 2(5) which is definition clause "Primary standard" was defined to mean in relation to measures of length, such standard measures including multiples or sub-multiples thereof, as have been prescribed by the Measures of Length Act, 1889 until they are superseded by an Act of Parliament and in relation to measures of area, capacity or volume, such standard measures, including multiples or sub-multiples thereof as may be established for the time being by or under a Central Act. 19. Section 8 of the Act provides that subject to the other provisions of this Act, and notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, all dealings or contracts, had or made therein, for any work to be done or any goods to be sold or delivered by weight or measure, shall be deemed to have been made according to the standards weights and measures and shall be fulfilled or performed by the prescribed weighing or measuring instruments, if any, and no person shall use any other weight or measure or weighing or measuring instrument in relation to any such dealing or contract. Sub-Section (2) of Section 8 provides that any dealing or contract had or made in contravention of the provisions of sub-section (1) shall be void to the extent of such contravention. 20. Thus, user of measure of length or area other than standard measures of length was prohibited in relation to any transaction of transfer of land also. Obviously, the State Government itself could not have contravened these provisions while describing the land in square yards by providing different yardstick of conversion of sq. yard into sq. feet other than what was provided as standard measure of yard. 21. In the Act of 1954, reference was made to Measures of Length act, 1889. In the said Act it was also provided by amendment in the year 1937 that 1/3rd part of the standard yard shall be called standard foot and one thirty sixth part of such a yard shall be called a standard inch. Thus, one square yard i.e. 1 yard x 1 yard would make an area of 3 ft. x 3 ft. 22. The Act of 1954 and the Measures of Length Act, 1889 were repealed by the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1956. It was by this enactment, India adopted metric system of weight and measures. 23. Section 3 of the Act of 1956 provides that primary unit of length shall be a metre and primary unit of area was defined as square metre. 24. Section 16 of the Act of 1956 provides for conversion of existing weights and measures into standard mass and measures. As per the first Schedule "Standard of Length and Capacity" one yard on conversion to meter measures O.9144 metre (exact). 25. Section 18 of the Act of 1956 is repealing provision by which the Measures of Length Act, 1889 and the Standards of Weight Act, 1939 stood repealed and the enactments specified in the Second Schedule, to the extent to which they contain any provision which corresponds to any provision of the Act stood repealed which included the State Act of 1954 also. 26. 26. Section 14 of the Act of 1956 makes provision for continuance of certain weights and measures during transitional period which provides that the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, permit the continuance of the use, after such commencement, in respect of that area or class of goods or undertakings, of such weights and measures, in addition to the standards of mass and measures and for such period, not exceeding three years, as may be specified in the notification. 17. Sub-section 3 of Section 16 envisages that all reference in any enactment or in any notification, rule or order under any enactment or in any contract, deed or other instruments to a value expressed in terms of any weight or measure other than those of a standard mass or measure shall be construed as references to that value expressed in terms of a standard mass or measure as the case may be, converted thereto at the rates specified in the First Schedule or in the Notification issued under sub-section (2), as the case may be. Therefore, conversion of standard measures into any other measures could only be done if the Central Government by notification in the official gazette has specified such measures. In the instant case, it is not the case that the Central Government in exercise of its power under Section 16 had notified the value of standard yard to be 2 ft. x 2 ft. or one yard to be of 2 ft. only. 28. After the Act of 1956, the Parliament enacted the Standards Weights and Measures Act, 1976. It was necessitated because of bringing standard weight and measures in this country at par with weight and measures recognized by the General Conference of Weights and Measures and the International Organisation of Legal Metrology. Under Section 3, the act was given overriding effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any enactment other than this act or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any enactment other than this Act. In this enactment, base unit of length was retained as meter. Likewise other weight and measures were defined independently. 29. Under Section 23 of the Act of 1976, prohibition was laid with regard to inscription or indication of weight, measure or number except in accordance with the standard unit of such weight, measures or numeration established by or under this Act. Likewise other weight and measures were defined independently. 29. Under Section 23 of the Act of 1976, prohibition was laid with regard to inscription or indication of weight, measure or number except in accordance with the standard unit of such weight, measures or numeration established by or under this Act. In the schedule also, one yard was shown as equal to 0.9144 metre 1 square yard was shown equal to .83612736 sq. metre. Therefore, all statutory enactments provide for standard yard equal to 3 ft. x 3 ft. In the earlier writ petition also, one of the reason for cancellation of allotment was encroachment by the petitioner over the excess land, but it was never pressed into service while the matter was before the learned Single Judge which goes to show that the letter (Annex.R/1) was never put into operation, nor State Government could under law provide any other standard to measure sq. yard than what flowed from the statutory provisions relating to weight and measures. The plea taken by the State in this regard is contrary to the statutory provisions and cannot be sustained. 30. As a result, appeal is allowed. Judgment under appeal is set aside. The writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 9.4.1997 requiring the petitioner to pay additional price for 25000 sq. ft. of land considering it to be in excess 5000 sq. yards of land allotted to Sh. Hari Narayan Agarwal is quahsed. No costs.