Judgment Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. This petition by the senior citizen Smt. Bhagwani Devi has been filed against the impugned order Annex. 7 dt. 24.04.1995, Annex. 8 dt. 14.08.1995, Annex. 9 dt. 13.07.1998. and Annex. 13 dt. 13.05.2005 and also for quashing of orders Annex. 12 dt. 01.05.2003 and Annex. 10 dt. 15.03.2001. 3. The facts giving rise to the filing of present writ petition in brief are as under: 4. The case of the petitioner is that the land situated at square No. 211/421 measuring 12 bighas of command land situated in Chak No. 13 BLM (A) Tehsil Sri Vijay Nagar was allotted to Sh. Lal Chand S/o Ghasi Ram vide allotment order No. 1465 dt. 14.04.1972 by the Dy. Commissioner (Colonization), Sri Vijay Nagar under the provisions of Colonization Allotment Rules as a pre-1955 tenant. After completion of 7 years and depositing of the entire installments of the land, the Khatedari rights were conferred upon the allottee vide Sanad No. 28734 dt. 20.12.1985 by the Distt. Collector, Sri Ganganagar. 5. Further case of the petitioner is that the said original allottee sold aforesaid land measuring 12 bighas to the petitioner vide registered sale-deed, Annex. 2, dt. 04.07.1991 and 06.07.1991 for consideration of Rs. 1,20,000. The mutation entries were also made in the Revenue Record on 24.03.1992. 6. The controversy started due to the reason that in pursuance of a sale agreement dt. 05.06.1986 executed by the original allottee Lal Chand in favour of another person Sh. Bela Ram S/o Sh. Chamba Ram. son of Bela Ram claimed regularisation of said land in his favour. According to the petitioner, however, the said sale agreement was cancelled by mutual agreement between these parties on 15.04.1990 vide Annex. 6 on record. Despite said cancellation of agreement, since son of Bela Ram approached the A.D.M., Sri Ganganagar for regularisation under Sec. 13-A of the Rajasthan Colonization Act, 1954. The said application came to be rejected on 24.04.1995 vide Annex.7. In the said order itself, the Additional Dist. Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar said that the said land in question accordingly stood resumed in favour of the State Government. 7. The petitioner challenged the said order before the Revenu Appellate Authority in appeal No. 333/1995, which came to be rejected by the Revenue Appellate Authority vide order dt. 14.08.1995. Annex. In the said order itself, the Additional Dist. Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar said that the said land in question accordingly stood resumed in favour of the State Government. 7. The petitioner challenged the said order before the Revenu Appellate Authority in appeal No. 333/1995, which came to be rejected by the Revenue Appellate Authority vide order dt. 14.08.1995. Annex. 8 further appeal to the Board of Revenue by the petitioner also failed vide order dt. 13.07.1998. Annex. 9. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of present writ petition. 8. Mr. N. L. Joshi the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits in the first instance that after insertion of proviso to Section 13(1) of the Rajasthan Colonisation Act in the year 1989 vide notification dt. 27.07.1989, the State Government has issued a notification exempting the command land in these areas from the requirement of obtaining prior permission of sale as required under Sec. 13. Section 13 as amended in the year 1989 is reproduced hereunder for ready reference: “Section 1(13). Transfer of rights.—(1) No tenant shall, without the previous consent in writing of the State Government or an officer of the State Government authorized by it in this behalf, to be given on the fulfillment of such conditions as may be prescribed, transfer his right or interest in land by way of sale, mortgage, exchange or gift or shall create thereon or shall sub-let the same for more than five years except by way of exchange under Sec.12 or by way of mortgage or charge to the State Government or to a Bank for the purpose of obtaining financial assistance from any of them: 2. Provided that the State Government may exclude any area of class of tenant from the operation of sub-section (1). (2) A transfer or sub-lease made or charge created in contravention of sub-sec. (1) shall be void and if the transferee, sub-lessee or, as the case may be, the charge-holder has obtained possession of the land transferred, sub-let or, as the case may be, charged or of any part thereof, he shall, after an opportunity of being heard has been given to him and the transferor, be liable to be ejected therefrom under the orders of the Collector and such land shall be resumed by the Collector to the State Government. Explanation.—For the purpose of sub-section (1) of this section— (a)the expression “bank” shall have the same meaning is as is assigned to it by clause (d) of Section 2 of the Rajasthan Agricultural Credit Operations (Removal of Difficulties) Act, 1974 (Rajasthan Act 22 of 1974) and shall include Land Development Banks specified in Section 84 of the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 (Rajasthan Act of 1965) and such other bank or financial institution which the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify as a bank for such purpose; and (b) the expression “Financial assistance” shall have the same meaning as is assigned to it by clause (f) of Sec.2 of the Rajasthan Agricultural Credit Operations (Removal of Difficulties) Act, 1974 (Rajasthan Act 22 of 1974) 1. Substituted vide Noti. No.F.2 (24) Vidhi 84. dt. 07.11.1984, Pub. In Raj. Gaz. Ex. Ordi. Pt. 4A. dt. 07.11.1984: 2. Inserted vide Noti. dt. 27.07.1989, Pub. In Raj. Gaz. Ex. Ordi. Pt. 4A, dt. 29.07.1989." 9. The Notification dt. Substituted vide Noti. No.F.2 (24) Vidhi 84. dt. 07.11.1984, Pub. In Raj. Gaz. Ex. Ordi. Pt. 4A. dt. 07.11.1984: 2. Inserted vide Noti. dt. 27.07.1989, Pub. In Raj. Gaz. Ex. Ordi. Pt. 4A, dt. 29.07.1989." 9. The Notification dt. 22.04.1991 in question is also reproduced hereunder: ß1- 4(27) fnukad % 22-04-1991 jktLFkku mifuosÓku vf/kfu;e] 1954 (1954 dk jktLFkku vf/kfu;e la[;k 27) dh /kkjk 13 dh mi/kkjk (1) ds ijUrqd }kjk iznÙk Ókkfä;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, bfUnjk xka/kh ugj] Hkk[kjk rFkk xax ugj ifj;kstuk ds vUrxZr fLFkr mu {ks=ksa dks ftu ij le; le; ij mä vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 2 ds mi[k.M f}rh; ds vUrZxr mä vf/kfu;e dks ykxw fd;k gS] jkT; ljdkj ,rn}kjk mä vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 13 dh mi/kkjk (1) ds izorZu ls vioftZr djrh gSA 2- /kkjk 1 ds mYya?ku esa fd;k x;k dksbZ vUrj.k ;k mi iV~Vk ;k l`ftr dksbZ Hkkj ÓkwU; gksxk vkSj ;fn vUrfrjrh mi iV~Vk/kkjh us ;k ;FkkfLFkfr Hkkfjr Hkwfe ;k mlds fdlh Hkkx dk dCtk vfHkizkIr dj fy;k gS rks og mls rFkk vUrj.kdrkZ dks lquokbZ dk volj ns fn;s tkus ds iÓpkr~ dysDVj ds vknsÓk ds v/khu mlls csn[ky fd;s tkus dk nk;h gksxk vkSj ,slh Hkwfe dysDVj }kjk jkT; ljdkj ds izfr iquxzghr dh tk;sxhA Li"Vhdj.k-—bl /kkjk dh mi/kkjk (1) ds iz;kstu ds fy,%& d- vfHkO;fä ßcSadÞ dk ogh vFkZ gksxk tks jktLFkku d`f"k lak[k izpyu (dfBukbZ;kW fuokj.k) vf/kfu;e] 1974 (1974 dk jktLFkku vf/kfu;e la[;k 22) dh /kkjk 2 ds [k.M ?k esa vfHkdfFkr gS vkSj blesa jktLFkku lgdkjh lkslk;Vh vf/kfu;e] 1965 (1965 dk jktLFkku vf/kfu;e la[;k 13) dh /kkjk 84 esa fofufnZ"V Hkwfe fodkl cSad ;k ,slh vU; cSad ;k fofÙk; laLFkk lfEefyr gS ftls jkT; ljdkj] jkt i= esa vf/klwpuk }kjk ,sls iz;kstu ds fy, cSad ds :i esa fofufnZ"V djs_ rFkk [k- vfHkO;fä ßfofÙk; lgk;rkÞ dk ogh vFkZ gksxk tks jktLFkku d`f"k lk[k izpyu (dfBukbZ;ka fuokj.k) vf/kfu;e] 1974 (1974 dk jktLFkku vf/kfu;e la- 22) dh /kkjk 2 ds [k.M p esa vfHkdfFkr gSAÞ Vide Notification dt. 22.04.1991, the ban on transfer was withdrawn. So it is very clear that the provisions of ejectment and penalty has been withdrawn by the State Government vide above notification. Now the order of the ejectment passed by the lower Court is not justified. The effect of striking down a provision shall be as if it never existed in the statute book. So it is very clear that the provisions of ejectment and penalty has been withdrawn by the State Government vide above notification. Now the order of the ejectment passed by the lower Court is not justified. The effect of striking down a provision shall be as if it never existed in the statute book. 2002 RRD 654 Pritam Singh and another vs. State of Rajasthan.” 10. Mr. Joshi submits that the sale in favour of the present petitioner was unassailable and the khatedari rights of the original allottee Lal Chand stood validly transferred in favour of the petitioner in whose favour necessary mutation entries were also made in the Revenue Record and therefore, there was no question of resumption of land in question in favour of the State Government in the proceedings under Sec. 13A for regularisation at the instance of son of Bela Ram, sale agreement in whose favour also stood cancelled by mutual agreement as aforesaid. 11. The learned G.A. fairly submits that in the proceedings in relation of Bela Ram under Sec. 13A, the land could not have been resumed in favour of the State Government atleast without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in whose favour registered sale-deed stood executed on 06.07.1991 vide Annex.2. He further submits that in view of amendment in law in Section 13 and subsequent notification dt. 22.04.1991 quoted above, the sale in favour of the present petitioner appears to be unassailable. 12. Having heard the learned counsel and upon perusal of the record of the case, it appears that the authorities below have erred in rejecting the appeal of the petitioner in relation to proceedings initiated by Bela Ram or his son for regularisation under Sec. 13A of the Act in pursuance of sale agreement which also stood cancelled. These authorities have also not cared to deal with the aforesaid notification dt. 22.04.1991 and factum of sale in favour of the petitioner by the registered sale-deed in proper perspective and rejected the appeals of the present petitioner without proper appreciation of relevant facts. 13. Consequently, this Courts finds that the impugned orders cannot be sustained and the present writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be allowed. 14. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders dt. 24.04.1995 Annex.7 to the extent it orders resumption of land in favour of the State. Annex. 8 dt. 13. Consequently, this Courts finds that the impugned orders cannot be sustained and the present writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be allowed. 14. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders dt. 24.04.1995 Annex.7 to the extent it orders resumption of land in favour of the State. Annex. 8 dt. 14.08.1995 rejecting the appeal of the petitioner by the Revenue Appellate Authority. Annex.9 dt. 13.07.1998 passed by the Board of Revenue. Annex.10 dt. 15.03.2001. Annex.12 dt. 01.05.2003 and Annex.13 dt. 12.05.2005 are quashed and set aside. No order as to costs.