Arvind, Member—These are six appeals u/S. 76(d) of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 against the judgment dated 18.1.2003 passed by learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Jaipur. 2. Briefly, the facts of this case are that following lands were allotted on the recommendation of the Advisory Committee in the meetings dated 14.9.1963 and 17.7.1965 : Name of the allottee Khasra Number Area Banshi Lal S/o Jagannath 22122211/1 4 bighas 9 biswas 3 bighas Ramprasad S/o Jagannath 374 1430/3 1 bigha 15 biswas 5 bighas Gopilal S/o Jagannath 1552/1 7 bighas 16 biswas Rupi Devi @ Rami Devi W/o Gopi Lal 4640/1 10 bighas 3 biswas Satyanarain S/o Ladu Ram 1196/3 1196/5 6 bighas 10 biswas 4 bighas 10 biswas Jetha S/o Jaisa 1460/5 1415/2 3 bighas 10 biswas 2 bighas 16 biswas 3. A complaint was made to Justice Beri Commission. Justice Beri on enquiry found that the allotments were irregular and full of bias. Justice Beri recommended to the government for the cancellation of the above allotments. On the basis of report received through the State Government a case was registered by Additional Collector-Ill, Jaipur. Notices were issued to the allottees to show-cause why the said allotments may not be cancelled. The allottees appeared before the Court but subsequently they abandoned the proceedings. Learned Additional Collector by his order dated 1.8.2002 cancelled the allotments, saying that the allotments were obtained through undue influence because Banshi Lal, the Sarpanch, was the member of the Advisory Committee and Jetha Ram was the Up-Sarpanch. Subsequently, learned Additional Collector amended his order on 13.10.2002 by which some khasra numbers and the allotted land were correctly mentioned. Against the order of cancellation of learned Additional Collector-Ill, Jaipur an appeal was preferred before learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Jaipur by the allottees. Learned R.A.A. heard all the affected parties and having heard them rejected the appeal on 18.1.2003 and upheld the cancellation of the allotment orders. These are appeals against the order of learned R.A.A., Jaipur dated 18.1.2003. The appeals of other appellants have been clubbed because all these cases were decided together by learned Additional Collector and subsequently appeals of all these appellants have been decided by one order by learned R.A.A., Jaipur. Since Jetharam died, he is being represented by his survivors, Barji Devi, Shyoji, Rameshwar, Ramdhan, Satyanarain, Sanjya and Supyar. The appeals of other appellants have been clubbed because all these cases were decided together by learned Additional Collector and subsequently appeals of all these appellants have been decided by one order by learned R.A.A., Jaipur. Since Jetharam died, he is being represented by his survivors, Barji Devi, Shyoji, Rameshwar, Ramdhan, Satyanarain, Sanjya and Supyar. Allottee Gauri Shankar also died and he is being represented by Vijay Laxmi, Hanuman, Kanhaiya Lal and Rajesh. All these appeals are being decided by one order because the issues involved are common and the law points are same in these appeals. Copy of this order may be enclosed in all the relevant filed, as mentioned in the title above. 4. Arguing in support of the appeals, the contention of the learned advocate on behalf of the appellants is that these allotments were made long ago that is before more than 30 years and it would be travesty of justice if these allotments are cancelled after such a long lapse of time. He also argued that the lands were allotted because the allottees landless and they were bona fide agriculturists. He also argued that since the allotments khatedari rights have been obtained by the allottees and the allotments cannot be cancelled at such a belated stage. He also argued that merely because the Sarpanch Banshi Lal whom and to his relatives land was allotted was the Sarpanch is not sufficient to disqualify him and his relatives and family members for allotments. He also argued that proper opportunity of hearing was not given by learned Additional Collector-Ill, Jaipur and without giving proper opportunity of hearing it was improper on the part of learned Additional Collector to cancel the allotments. He also argued that learned R.A.A. has not properly evaluated the facts available before him and he has not logically discussed the issues raised in the order of learned Additional Collector. He invited our attention to the following authorities of Honble Superior Courts: (i) RRD 1990 page 642 (ii)RBJ 195(2) page 780 (iii) 1996 RBJ (3) page 412 (iv) 1996(3) RBJ page 287 (v) 1995 RBJ (2) page 780 (vi) RRD 1999 page 128 (vii) 1994 SCC (4) page 575 (viii) RRD 2001 page 126 He also argued that there are several examples where land has been allotted to the MLAs etc. even when they were members of the Advisory Committee, as such this case also needs sympathetic consideration. 5. Arguing against the appeals, the contentions of the learned Govt. Advocate are that these allotments have been rightly cancelled because the allotments were made by misrepresentation and by undue influence. Shri Banshi Lal, Sarpanch got advantage of his position as Sarpanch and got the land allotted whereas neither he was landless nor his family members were landless. He not only got the land allotted himself but got the land allotted to his brother Ramprasad and another brother Gopilal, his wife Ramadevi and his close relative Satyanarain. That the Up-sarpanch also got advantage of the situation and Up-sarpanch Jetharam got the land allotted to him. When the advisory committee meeting took place Sarpanch was one of the members hence he took advantage of his position for himself, his brothers, his wife, his relatives and his Up-sarpanch. This matter was enquired by Justice Beri Commission and Honble Justice Beri found that the allottees did not deserve to get the land allotted and they took advantage of the position and as such this was not a fair allotment; hence he recommended for cancellation of the allotments. On the basis of the report of Justice Beri. The matter was examined by learned Additional Collector Jaipur and having heard and having examined the matter he cancelled the allotments. The affected parties went to learned R.A.A. and learned R.A.A. have also found that since the allotments were obtained by undue influence exerted by the Sarpanch and Up-sarpanch and there was no proper examination of eligibility and the land allotted could not have been allotted because neither there was proper examination and none of the allottee was landless person. As such the allotments are vitiated and have rightly been rejected. He also argued that learned Additional Collector gave notice to the allottees before cancellation of the allotments. The allottees present themselves before the Court but later on they abandoned the proceedings at their own will and there is no reason to accept their contention that opportunity of hearing was not given. They have also been heard at length by learned R.A.A. and the decision of . learned Additional Collector has merged in the decision of learned R.A.A. As such their contention on natural justice is erroneous and unreasonable. They have also been heard at length by learned R.A.A. and the decision of . learned Additional Collector has merged in the decision of learned R.A.A. As such their contention on natural justice is erroneous and unreasonable. He invited our attention to the various authorities of Honble High Court and argued that whenever the allotments are obtained through misrepresentation and whenever undue advantage is taken then allotments deserve to be cancelled. Sarpanch was member of the advisory committee and he got the land allotted to himself and to his relative and family members, as mentioned above and Shri Jetharam was Up-sarpanch who also got the land allotted for himself through the influence of the Panchayat, as such the recommendations of Justice Beri for cancellation of these allotments is justified. He also argued that it has nowhere been mentioned before any proceedings that the allottees were landless at the time of allotments. Even in the proceedings before this Bench they have produced no evidence which can prove that the allottees were bona fide agriculturists and landless labours or landless agriculturists. It has nowhere been mentioned with sufficient evidence that the allottees deserved priority in the allotments. Learned Govt. Advocate invited our attention to R.R.D. 2000 page 151 and 77 and argued that Honble High Court has laid down a principle that where Sarpanch is the member of the advisory committee and the land is got allotted to him or his relative allotment deserves to be cancelled and as such the judgment given by Honble Justice B.J. Sethna as reported in R.R.D. 2000 page 151 is directly relevant in this case. He also argued that these allotments have been obtained through misrepresentation and for that purpose the judgment Honble High Court in Ridmal Singh vs. State and Ors., as reported in R.R.D. 2000 page 77 is directly relevant in this matter. He also invited our attention to the judgment rendered in Sohan Kanwar vs. Board of Revenue and Ors. in which their Lordships in Honble High Court of Rajasthan have held that allotment obtained through misrepresentation can be cancelled even at a belated stage and even when khatedari rights have accrued. Learned Govt. He also invited our attention to the judgment rendered in Sohan Kanwar vs. Board of Revenue and Ors. in which their Lordships in Honble High Court of Rajasthan have held that allotment obtained through misrepresentation can be cancelled even at a belated stage and even when khatedari rights have accrued. Learned Govt. Advocate argued this case is also directly relevant because the Sarpanch Banshi Lal and the Up-sarpanch Jetharam concealed the facts and misused their position and influence and even till now it has nowhere been proved that they were landless or bona fide agriculturists. He argued that Sarpnach Banshi Lal violated all norms of decency and he took the fullest advantage of his position and got the land allotted not only to himself but to close relatives including his wife and brothers. As such the allotments have rightly been cancelled by learned Additional Collector and learned Revenue Appellate Authority and both these orders deserve to be upheld. He also argued that if a lesson is not taught to such people the poor and deserving people will always wait with tears in their eyes and their rightful claims will be frustrated. 6. In this matter an application has been made by learned advocate Shri Bhawani Singh on behalf of Shri Bheru son of Binja requesting that Shri Bheru should be impleaded as a necessary party in the appeal by Shri Banshi Lal because he is worshipping the deity of the temple which has been constructed by the villagers and allottee Banshi Lal wants to take possession of the temple and the connected land. His arguments were heard and he has been included as a necessary party in this case. 7. Having heard the arguments of all sides, having perused the record and having respectfully perused the authorities referred in this case, I come to the following conclusions: (a) Opportunity of hearing was given by learned Additional Collector to the appellants and they appeared before him but they stopped attending the Court at their own. As such it cannot be accepted that proper opportunity of hearing was not given. (b) In the appeals no proof has been given by which it can be believed that the allottees were landless labours or deserving landless agriculturists at the time of allotments, without any proof it is not proper for us to accept the argument that allotments were rightly made. (b) In the appeals no proof has been given by which it can be believed that the allottees were landless labours or deserving landless agriculturists at the time of allotments, without any proof it is not proper for us to accept the argument that allotments were rightly made. (c) That I fully agree with the contention of the appellants that in case of genuine case their contention of upholding the allotments at a belated time could have been accepting but in this case the authorities which are directly relevant have to be respectfully obeyed. These are the following authorities of Honble High Court which are directly relevant in the circumstances of these appeals: 2000 R.R.D. page 77 Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Land for Agricultural Purpose) Rules, 1957, Rules 2(iii) & 14 — Allotment obtained fraudulently by four persons (petitioners) of a family who were not coming within definition of landless person — When matter was brought to notice of concerned authorities after 20 years, said allotment was cancelled by Collector — Because of appeals filed by petitioners, before R.A.A., and Board of Revenue and thereafter present writ petitions, they remained in possession of the land for total period of about 235 years since said allotment — Held, such delay in cancelling the allotment is not fatal where allotment secured by practising fraud with the Govt. — Though there was 20 years delay in proceedings against petitioners, there was no delay on the part of authority because as soon as it was brought to their notice the proceedings were initiated immediately — Further held that merely because petitioners managed to remain in possession of land for about 30-35 years from the date of allotment, it would not be a circumstance in their favour because if was self created. 2000 R.R.D. page 151 (A) Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Land * for Agricultural Purposes) Rules, 1970, Rules 14(4) & 13(3) — Cancellation of allotment by Collector in exercise of powers u/R. 14(4) on the ground that petitioner No. 1 in his capacity as a Sarpanch not only got the allotment of land in his favour but also in favour of his daughter (petitioner No. 2) and his son-in-law by taking part in Allotment Advisory Committee on three different occasions — Held, petitioner No. 1 (Sarpanch) was not entitled to participate in Advisory Committee for the purpose of allotting the land to himself and his family members — Further held that at the time of allotment he was not landless person, therefore, he was not entitled for allotment — Allotment rightly cancelled by Collector even after conferment of khatedari rights in favour of petitioners. 2002 R.R.D. page 1 Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Land for Agricultural Purpose) Rules, 1970, Rule 14(4) — Cancellation of allotment — Allotment obtained by petitioner-appellant by misrepresenting the fact that she was landless person whereas 43 bighas 5 biswas land already existing in favour of her husband-petitioner acquired khatedari rights after 10 years — Allotment cancelled by Collector after 30 years — Validity of — Held, allotment order being bad in eye of law being obtained by misrepresentation can be said to be ineffective — Conferment of khatedari rights is only consequential which also cannot be maintained — Land lapse of time cannot be considered sufficient to save such allotment order by misrepresentation — Order of Collector not liable to be interfered with. 8. In view of these authorities I find that these allotments were cancelled on the recommendation of Justice Beri who found that Sarpanch Banshi Lal had misused his authority and irregularly got land allotted to himself and his wife, brothers and relatives and land was allotted to Up-sarpanch Jetha with undue influence and the appellants have failed to confront with adequate evidence the findings of learned Additinal Collector-III, Jaipur which were passed having perused the recommendations of Justice Beri Commission and after proper enquiry from the revenue authorities., Learned R.A.A. has heard the appellants and proper opportunity has been given to the appellants but they have failed to support the claim for rightful allotments. In view of the discussions above, all these appeals do not find any ground for acceptance and there are, therefore, rejected and the impugned orders of learned Additional Collector-III, Jaipur and learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Jaipur are upheld.