JUDGMENT 1. - That by the instant writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of the Allotment Advisory Committee, Tehsil Khanpur, District Jhalawar, dated 3.1.1983 whereby the respondent No. 5 was allotted 7 Bigha 18 Biswa of land of Khasra No. 315, the order of the Revenue Appellate Authority, Kota, dated 6.9.1994 and that of the Board of Revenue, Ajmer, dated 7.10.1994 with the further prayer that the application of the respondent No. 5 for allotment of land dated 3.1.1983 be dismissed and further it be declared that respondent No. 5 is not a landless person. 2. The facts in brief, of the case are that land measuring 7 Bigha 18 Biswa in Khasra No. 315 was allotted to respondent No. 5 on filing an application on 3.1.1983 under the Rajasthan Land Revenue Allotment of Land for Agricultural Purposes Rules, 1970 (for short 'the Rules of 1970'). The petitioner filed a complaint under Rule 14(4) of the Rules of 1970 before the Collector, Jhalawar, on the ground that the respondent No. 5 was not in possession of the said land and the applicant was in possession of the land and for that reason the petitioner is entitled to the allotment of the said land, even if he is a trespasser. The other ground taken before the Collector was that the respondent No. 5 was not a 'landless person' and further the procedure as prescribed under the law was not followed by the S.D.O. The Collector cancelled the said allotment on the ground that the respondent No. 5 was not eligible for allotment being not a landless person. It was also contended by the petitioner that the Khatedari was given to the allottee vide Mutation No. 349 dated 27.5.1993.whereas the application for cancellation of allotment was filed by him before the said date i.e. 18.1.1993, therefore, the Khatedari had not accrued to the allottee on the date the application for cancellation of allotment has been filed. The Revenue Appellate Authority after examining the notional share of respondent No. 5 also came to the conclusion that he is a landless person on account of having less than ten acres of land and the order of Collector was set aside. The Revenue Appellate Authority after examining the notional share of respondent No. 5 also came to the conclusion that he is a landless person on account of having less than ten acres of land and the order of Collector was set aside. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Board of Revenue and after hearing both the parties the Board of Revenue has come to the conclusion that the allotment of land was made on 3.1.1983 whereas the first appeal was filed on 18.1.1993 and as per rule 18 of the Rules of 1970. Khatedari right automatically accrued to respondent No. 5 after the allotment. The Board of Revenue has further considered the fact that after accrual of the Khatedari rights the allotment can not be cancelled under rule 14(4) of the Rules and even if any person is aggrieved subsequent to the conferment of the Khatedari rights, he will have to agitate his right through a proper suit in accordance with law. Consequently the appeal was dismissed on 7.10.1994. 3. The respondent No. 5 has not filed any reply to the writ petition but has orally contested the writ petition and submitted that the judgment of the Board of Revenue is legal and proper. 4. During the pendency of the writ petition an application was filed by the petitioner on 1.8.2005 whereby the judgment and decree of the S.D.O. Khanpur dated 12.4.2005 in a suit for declaration filed by the petitioner against the respondent No. 5 and Kanhaya Lal has been partly decreed on filing the review application. On 8.8.2005, this Court has ordered that the said application for taking the document on record shall be considered at the time of hearing. On 12.7.2006 counsel for the petitioner sought time to seek instructions whether any appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree of the Sub- Divisional Magistrate dated 12.4.2005. On 27.2.2006, counsel for the respondent No. 5 submitted that he has not filed any appeal against the judgment and decree of the S.D.O. dated 12.4.2005 and the said document was taken on record on 28.7.2006. 5. The dispute in the present case is with regard to the allotment of land measuring 7 Bigha 18 Biswa in Khasra No. 315. On 27.2.2006, counsel for the respondent No. 5 submitted that he has not filed any appeal against the judgment and decree of the S.D.O. dated 12.4.2005 and the said document was taken on record on 28.7.2006. 5. The dispute in the present case is with regard to the allotment of land measuring 7 Bigha 18 Biswa in Khasra No. 315. In the writ petition the petitioner has averred that new Khasra No. 315 of village Umariya, Tehsil Khanpur, has been wrongly increased by the Settlement Authorities from 1 Bigha 2 Biswa of old Khasra No. 256 to 7 Bigha 18 Biswas of New Khasra No. 315 by incorporating the lands of petitioner's khatedari and possession comprised in Khasra No. 188. Khasra No. 653/261 and a part of Khasra No. 654/261, therefore, the land which was in the khatedari of the petitioner has been wrongly allotted to the respondent no. 5. The petitioner has further averred in para No. 5 of the writ petition that the petitioner has filed a civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the State of Rajasthan, Non-Petitioner No. 5 and Kanhaiyalal in the court of A.C.M. Jhalawar Camp Khanpur, which is at present pending in that court and had also filed a copy of the plaint. A perusal of the same would reveal that the civil suit was filed on 1.2.1994 but the said fact was not brought to the notice of the Board of Revenue. Otherwise also the Board of Revenue has ultimately opined that after the conferment of the khatedari right to a person the only remedy is to file a civil suit for declaration. 6. The submission of the counsel for the petitioner is that in view of the order dated 12.4.2005, the S.D.O. may be allowed to proceed further with the declaration of Khasra No. 315. From the judgment it appears that the original judgment was passed on 27.1.2005 and application under Order 47 Rule 1 was filed on 12.4.2005 and on the same date without issuing any notice to any party an ex pane amended decree has been passed, although the issue of declaration of Khasra No. 315 has been left open till any decision by this Court. 7. Counsel for the respondent No. 5 has also submitted that since the issue has been left open, therefore, he may be allowed to raise all objections before the S.D.O. Khanpur. 7. Counsel for the respondent No. 5 has also submitted that since the issue has been left open, therefore, he may be allowed to raise all objections before the S.D.O. Khanpur. The relevant portion of the order passed by S.D.O. Khanpur on the review application is as under: " iqu% izkFkhZ dks lquk x;k i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;k pwafd ekStwnk gky uEcj 315 jdok 7 ch?kk 18 fcLok] tks orZeku esa izfroknh ';ksth iq= jkeukFk /kkdM+ dks vkoaVu dj j[kk gSA eqrkfcd feyku {ks=Qy mldk iqjkuk [k0ua0 256 jdck 1 ch?kk 2 fcLok ntZ gSA lsVyesaV foHkkx }kjk bl u;s [k0ua0 x 315 esa oknh ds [kkrs dh iqjkus 188&654@261 ,oa 653@261 dh 4 ch?kk 6 fcLok Hkwfe rFkk oknh ds gh [kkrs dh iqjkus [k0ua 245&247&248 ,oa 249 dh 2 ch?kk 10 fcLok Hkwfe dks feykdj cuk;k x;k gSA bl izdkj oknh dh dqy 6 ch?kk 16 fcLok Hkwfe [k0ua0 esa feyk;h x;h tks u;s iqjkus uD'kk Vs~l ns[kus ls lkfcr gksrk gSA pawfd [k0ua0 315 dk iqjku [k0ua0 256 jdok 1 ch?kk 2 fcLok gh eqrkfcd jSdkMZ ntZ gSA ckdh 6 ch?kk 16 fcLok oknh ds [kkrs dh Hkwfe gSA ftldk oknh dk [kkrsnkj d`"kd ?kksf"kr fd;k tk ldrk gSA pwafd [k0 315 dh 7 ch?kk 18 fcLok vkjkth ckcr~ orZeku esa ekuuh; U;k;ky; jkt0 gkbZ dksVZ] t;iqj esa fopkjk/khu gksus ds QyLo:i tc rd mPp U;k;ky; ls fookfnr vkjkth ckcr~ fu.kZ; ugha gks tkrk mDr [k0ua0 ckcr jkt0 mPp U;k;ky; t;iqj ds fu.kZ; gksus ij gh eqrkfcd fu.kZ; ikyuk dh tkuk laHko gksxkA " 8. I have gone through the record of the case and further considered s all the documents on record, more particularly the judgment and decree dated 12.4.2005 passed by the S.D.O. Khanpur. In such kind of dispute when two parties are disputing the Khatedari rights of each other in respect of same Khasra No. 315 the proper remedy is to file a suit for declaration. 9. In view of the above, no further interference is called for with regard o to the impugned order and the parties are free to agitate the issue of declaration of their Khatedari rights in respect of Khasra No. 315 before the S.D.O. Khanpur, and the S.D.O. Khanpur will decide the same after hearing both the parties.The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.Writ Petition Disposed of as Above. *******