JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition is directed against the order dated 25.05.92 passed by the Collector & District Magistrate, Dholpur, order dated 09.9.94 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bharatpur, Camp Dholpur and the orders dated 06.02.97 and 18.03.97 passed by the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer in appeal and review petition respectively. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners applied for regularisation of the land bearing Khasra No. 543 measuring 50 Bigha and new Khasra No. 507 measuring 41 Bigha 6 Biswa situated in village Ekta, Tehsil Basedi, District Dholpur. As per the report, the petitioners were found in possession of 7 Bighas land each in the above Khasra.[2] 3. It is also not disputed that the land which is in possession of the petitioners was pasture land and nature of posture land was converted by the Sub Divisional Officer and the case of the petitioners was considered for regularisation and on account of possession over the land in question, the possession was regularised on 31.12.1974 and mutation was also opened in the petitioners name. 4. An application was moved on behalf of the respondent No.2 Ram Bharosi under Rule 14(4) of the Allotment of land (For Agriculture Purposes) Rules, 1970 (for short 'the Rules of 1970') alleging therein that the petitioners got the land allotted in their favour and also able to got the regularisation of the possession and mutation were opened by way of manipulation and misrepresentation. 5. It was also alleged that the petitioners were never in possession of the land in question. 5. It was also alleged that the petitioners were never in possession of the land in question. The Collector & District Magistrate, Dholpur in its order dated 25.05.92 examined as many as 11 points to settle the dispute, which are as under: " 1- ds'ko flag o jkeizdk'k nksuksa uRFkhflag ds iq= gSa vkSj xzke xquiqj ds jgus okys gSa rFkk djhc 6 ekg iwoZ gh xzke ,DVk esa vius lkys jkeLo:i ds ;gka vkdj cl x;s gSa tks o"kZ 1974 esa vkoaVu ds iwoZ ;k vkaoVu ds ckn xzke ,DVk esa ugha jgsA 2- nksuksa xSj lk;yku dk vkjkth [kljk ua0 507 ij dHkh dksbZ dCtk ugha jgkA 3- ;s Hkwfe pkjkxkg dh Hkwfe gSA 4- xSj lk;yku ds gd esa fd;k x;k fu;eu@vkoaVu fnukad 31&12&74 dk gS exj ;g vkoaVu fdlh rglhynkj ;k miftyk/kh'k us ugha fd;k vkSj u mudks ,slk djus dk vf/kdkj FkkA fu;eu@vkoaVu lEcU/kh dk;Zokgh esa ;g Hkh vafdr ugha fd;k x;k fd xSj lk;yku dk dCtk fdl lEor ls FkkA 5- miftyk eftLV~sV] /kkSyiqj ;k mi[k.Mkf/kdkjh /kkSyiqj dks pkjkxkg dh Hkwfe dks ifjofrZr djus vkSj vkoaVu@fu;fer djus dk dksbZ vf/kdkj izkIr ugha Fkk ,oa vkoaVu fcuk vkoaVu lykgdkj lfefr dh jk; ds fd;k x;k gS blfy;s fu;e&13 ds fo:) gSA 6- xSj lk;yku fu;eu@vkoaVu ds fnu Hkwfeghu ugha Fks vkSj os vius firk ds lkFk la;qDr ifjokj esa xzke xquiqj esa jgrs Fks xSj lk;yku ,DVk xkze ds vFkok rglhy clsMh ds vU; utnhd ds xkao ds jgus okys ugha Fks blfy;s fu;e&10 ( 2 ) dh ikyuk ugha gqbZA 7- fnukad 31&12&74 dks lEcfU/kr fu;eksa ds v/khu bl Hkwfe ij uktk;t dCts dks fu;fer djus dk dksbZ dkuqu ugha FkkA 8- vkjkth [kljk ua0 507 ds lEcU/k esa lk;y o vU; O;fDr egsUnz] txeksgu oxSgjk ds chp ,d jktLo okn uEcjh 434@70 ,oa nwljk okn egsUnz flag cuke jktLFkku ljdkj U;k;ky; lgk;d dysDVj /kkSyiqj esa 11&11&70 dks is'k gqvk Fkk tks 22&5&74 dks oknhx.k ds gd esa fMdzh gqvk vkSj os [kkrsnkj dk'rdkj ?kksf"kr fd;s x;s exj bl fMdzh dk jsdkMZ esa vadu ugha gks ik;k FkkA bl Hkwfe dh ckcr vnkyr lgk;d dysDVj ckMh esa fnukad 5&5&90 dks ,d jktLo okn uEcj 43@90 izLrqr fd;k FkkA 9- lu~ 1989 esa ,oa 1990 esa jktdqekj iq= vejflag iq= jkeHkjkslh rFkk dqN vU; yksxksa ds f[kykQ ekSds ij bl Hkwfe ij dCts gksus ds dkj.k muds fo:) /kkjk&91 jktLFkku Hkw&jktLo vf/kfu;e dk;Zokgh dh xbZ FkhA 10- xSj lk;yku ds gd esa ;fn fu;eu@vkoaVu dh ckcr jktLo jsdkMZ esa vkt rd dksbZ vadu ugha gqvk gSA 11- fnukad 11&7&91 dks tc rglhynkj clsMh ekSds ij iSekbZ'k djus x;s vkSj iwNrkN dh rks lk;y dks igyh ckj bl Hkwfe dk xSj lk;yku ds gd esa vkoaVu@fu;eu gksus dk irk pyk vkSj rRi'pkr~ mlesa jsdkMZ dh tkap dh ,oa 17&7&91 dks udy izkIr djus ds ckn leLr tkudkjh izkIr gqbZ rRi'pkr~ ;s izkFkZuk&i= is'k fd;k x;kA " 6. Having considered each and every aspect with regard to the issues framed by the Collector, the application moved on behalf of the respondent No.2 Ram Bharosi under Section 17(A) was allowed and the Collector & District Magistrate, Dholpur while allowing the application, cancelled the order dated 18.06.91 and the regularisation/allotment order was also cancelled and the concerned Tehsildar was directed to refund the amount which was deposited by the petitioners. 7. Aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid order of the Collector & District Magistrate, Dholpur dated 25.05.92, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bharatpur, Camp Dholpur. The Revenue Appellate Authority having thoroughly examined the application moved on behalf of the respondent No.2 and having considered the order passed by the Collector & District Magistrate, Dholpur in the application moved on behalf of the respondent No.2 following irregularities were pointed out: " 1- ;g fd xSj lk;yku xzke xquiqj rglhy jktk[ksMk ds fuoklh gSa vkSj cjoDr vkoaVu xzke ,DV rglhy clsMh esa fuokl ugha djrs FksA 2- ;g fd vkoaVu vkjkth ij mudk dCtk dHkh ugha jgkA 3- ;g fd vkjkth pkjkxkg gSA 4- ;g fd xSj lk;yku ds gd esa fd;k x;k vkoaVu fu;eu QthZ gS D;ksafd fu;eu ls iwoZ vkjkth ij mudk dCtk ugha FkkA 5- mi ftyk dysDVj /kkSyiqj dks pkjkxkg vkjkth dh fdLe ifjorZu dk vf/kdkj ugha FkkA 6- ;g fd cjoDr fu;eu os Hkwfeghu ugha FksA 7- ;g fd fu;eu dh fnukad 31-12-74 dks uktk;t dCts ds fu;eu dk dksbZ dkuwu ugha FkkA 8- ;g fd vkjkth ds lEcU/k esa izkFkhZ o vU; ds e/; nkok pydj fnukad 22-5-74 dks lk;yku ds i{k esa nkok fMdzh gqvk Fkk ysfdu fMdzh dh btjk; dh vof/k fudyus ds ckn iqu% ,d nkok tsjdkj gSA 9- ;g fd lu~ 1989 ,oa 1990 esa bl Hkwfe ij jktdqekj o vU; yksxksa dk vfrde.k Fkk ftlds dkj.k muds fo:) /kkjk 91 Hkw&jktLo vf/kfu;e ds vUrxZr dk;Zokgh dh xbZ FkhA 10- ;g fd xSj lk;yku ds gd esa fu;eu dk vey vkt rd ugha gqvk gSA " 8. Upon consideration of the rival submissions of the respective parties and the judgments as well as the provisions of law, the Revenue Appellate Authority upheld the order dated 25.05.92 passed by the Collector & District Magistrate, Dholpur and rejected the appeal filed by the petitioners vide its judgment dated 09.09.94.[6] 9. Upon consideration of the rival submissions of the respective parties and the judgments as well as the provisions of law, the Revenue Appellate Authority upheld the order dated 25.05.92 passed by the Collector & District Magistrate, Dholpur and rejected the appeal filed by the petitioners vide its judgment dated 09.09.94.[6] 9. Both the above orders dated 25.05.92 and 09.09.94 passed by the Collector & District Magistrate, Dholpur and the Revenue Appellate Authority respectively, were assailed by the petitioners before the Board of Revenue, Ajmer by way of filing appeal. 10. The Board of Revenue has considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners that under the Allotment Rules, 1970, allotment was made and the amount was deposited and as such allotment could not be cancelled. Learned counsel for the petitioners referred Rule 20 and also pointed out that proceedings are initiated after a lapse of 20 years and the allotment order has been cancelled merely on technical grounds. 11. It is also contended that Rule 20(2) of the Rajasthan Colonisation Medium & Minor Irrigation Project) Rules, 1968 (for short 'the Rules of 1968) has not been properly considered. As per Rule 20, there is no bar that the petitioners being not residents of the same village, are not entitled to get the allotment in their favour. 12. On behalf of the State, the learned Govt. Advocate has referred Rules 10, 13, 17 and 21 and submitted the judgments relied upon by him. 13. The Board of Revenue having considered each and every aspect and the submissions advanced on behalf of the respective parties and upon perusal of the judgments relied upon and having considered the observations made by the Collector & District Magistrate, Dholpur vide its judgment dated 25.05.92, who has observed that in the matter of allotment for the first time Keshav Singh (petitioner No.1 here in this writ petition) moved an application on 06.10.90 for regularising the allotment made in the year 1974. Keshav Singh has further in the affidavit misrepresented the facts regarding his age and other particulars and he does not belong to village Ekta. 14. The report made by the Tehsildar dated 31.12.74, there is an order of Sub Divisional Officer, Dholpur i.e. without any date and in fact there was no such post existed in the year 1974-75. 15. Keshav Singh has further in the affidavit misrepresented the facts regarding his age and other particulars and he does not belong to village Ekta. 14. The report made by the Tehsildar dated 31.12.74, there is an order of Sub Divisional Officer, Dholpur i.e. without any date and in fact there was no such post existed in the year 1974-75. 15. It was also observed by the Court below that entire record appears to be a fabricated one and on the basis of the relevant record the allotment so made and further proceedings thereof require to be cancelled on this count alone. 16. It is not disputed that the alleged allotment order was passed in the year 1974 and till 1991, no[8] amount was deposited and when the matter was enquired, it was found that every thing has been manipulated and fabricated. 17. The Board of Revenue vide its judgment dated 06.02.97, dismissed the appeal filed on behalf of the petitioners and upheld the orders dated 25.05.92 and 09.09.94 passed by the Collector & District Magistrate, Dholpur and the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bharatpur, Camp Dholpur respectively. 18. Against the order dated 06.02.97, the petitioners preferred a review petition before the Board of Revenue, wherein the Board of Revenue has further thoroughly considered the submissions advanced on law and facts and observed that the appeal was rejected by the Board of Revenue upholding the orders passed by the Collector & District Magistrate and the Revenue Appellate Authority vide judgment dated 06.02.97 for various reasons, firstly because the allotment of the land was made in contravention of the rules; secondly the appellant was not the resident of the place where the land was allotted to him; thirdly the conditions of the allotment were also violated and fourthly, the so called allotment was made in the year 1974 under the Rules of 1970 and till 1991 no amount[9] was deposited. 19. It was also observed that when the enquiry was made, it was found that the order of regularisation was obtained by fraud and manipulation and fabrication in record. Thus, having considered the ratio decided by the various High Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Board of Revenue dismissed the review petition summarily without interfering in the orders passed by the Courts below. 20. Thus, having considered the ratio decided by the various High Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Board of Revenue dismissed the review petition summarily without interfering in the orders passed by the Courts below. 20. Upon careful perusal of the concurrent findings given by the Collector & District Magistrate, Dholpur, the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bharatpur, Camp Dholpur and the Board of Revenue in appeal and review petition, as observed herein above, allotment which was procured, is no doubt by connivance with the authorities and fabricating and manipulating the record and the petitioners are not able to prove their adverse possession over the land as per rules for which they are entitled to seek regularisation/ allotment of the land in question. 21. Further, this Court is fully satisfied with the reasons and observations made by the Collector & District Magistrate, Dholpur, the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bharatpur, Camp Dholpur and the Board of[10] Revenue, Ajmer that the allotment of land was made in contravention of the rules and appears to be manipulated one. 22. In such circumstances, this Court do not want to interfere with the concurrent findings given by all the Courts below. 23. Consequently, the writ petition fails being devoid of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. 24. The ex parte interim order dated 22.10.97 granted by this Court stands rejected. The stay application also stands dismissed.Writ petition dismissed. *******