JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has challenged the judgment dated 15.2.2007 by which the respondent's writ petition was allowed and the order passed by the Board of Revenue dated 26.8.1994 (Annex.3) was quashed and order passed by Revenue Appellate Authority (Annex.4) was restored. 3. The brief facts of the case are that a piece of land measuring 9 bighas and 3 biswas was allotted to Sadhu Singh as back as on 6.1.1969. It is alleged that he sold the land to the respondents on 19.12.1973. After allotment of 11 years, in November, 1984 a complaint was submitted against the said alleged illegal transaction of sale by Sadhu Singh on the ground that Sadhu Singh was not competent to sale the land as by that time, he was not khatedari tenant of the land and he was gair khatedari tenant and gar khatedari tenant could not have sold the land without prior approval of the authority concerned. The complaint was entertained and according to the appellant, a notice was served upon the original allottee Sadhu Singh and one person Gyan Singh, alleged representative of the purchasers. Thereafter, Sadhu Singh and Gyan Singh both sought time from the concerned authority but they did not appear thereafter nor they filed any reply. Ultimately on 25.10.1985, the competent authority passed the order of taking possession of land from the person in occupation. However, the order was sent for taking possession on 20.11.1985. 4. As per appellant and as per 'ghatna bahi', the possession of land was taken on 30.11.1985. The land was mutated in the name of State Government only on 5.6.1991. Before the land was mutated in the name of State Government vide mutation dated 5.6.1991, a notice was issued on 2.5.1991 declaring the land available for allotment is Government land under the Rajasthan Colonisation (Gang Canal Permanent Allotment and Sale) Rules, 1956. Applications were invited, in response to which the appellant submitted application for allotment of land which is measuring 9 bighas and 3 biswa. The land was allotted to the appellant on 18.6.1991. 5. In the year 1991, the respondent's transferor from Sadhu Singh preferred appeals to challenge the order dated 25.10.1985, 20.11.1985 and 18.6.1991. Applications were invited, in response to which the appellant submitted application for allotment of land which is measuring 9 bighas and 3 biswa. The land was allotted to the appellant on 18.6.1991. 5. In the year 1991, the respondent's transferor from Sadhu Singh preferred appeals to challenge the order dated 25.10.1985, 20.11.1985 and 18.6.1991. Those appeals were allowed by Revenue Appellate Authority vide order dated 11.6.1992 by which the learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Sriganganagar set aside the orders dated 25.10.1985, 20.11.1985 so also 18.6.1991 and ordered restoration of land in favour of respondent. The said order of Revenue Appellate Autohrity dated 11.6.1992 was challenged by petitioner by preferring appeal before the Board of Revenue, Ajmer which was allowed by Board of Revenue vide order dated 26.8.1994 (Annex.13). The said order was challenged by the writ petitioner respondents by preferring S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4517/1994. The said writ petition was allowed by learned Single Judge vide impugned judgment dated 15.2.2007. 6. According to learned counsel for the appellant, learned Single Judge proceeded on wrong assumption that no notice for cancellation of allotment of land in favour of Sadhu Singh was given to the original allottee Sadhu Singh or to the purchasers whereas, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, notice was served upon said Sadhu Singh as well as upon person who was in occupation, Gyan Singh. Both appeared before the competent authority and sought time. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that learned Single Judge proceeded on further wrong assumption that notice which was issued by the competent authority in the proceeding initiated in the year 1984 was only for demanding certain regularisation fees and not for cancellation of land. It is also submitted that possession of land was taken on the said date and is recorded in Ghatna Bahi of 30.11.1985. It is also submitted that learned Single Judge proceeded under assumption that possession was not taken and there is no proof that actual possession was taken. It is further submitted that learned Single Judge also reached to the conclusion that in the allotment of land to the appellant, rules were not followed whereas, in fact, there is no violation of any rule. The land was duly notified and thereafter, applications were invited and thereafter, it was decided in accordance with law. It is further submitted that learned Single Judge also reached to the conclusion that in the allotment of land to the appellant, rules were not followed whereas, in fact, there is no violation of any rule. The land was duly notified and thereafter, applications were invited and thereafter, it was decided in accordance with law. It is also submitted that orders which were passed in the year 1985 have been challenged by preferring appeals in year 1991 only then, in that situation, learned Revenue Appellate Authority should not have entertained the appeals against the orders of year 1985 in year 1991. 7. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. After perusing the notice, certified copy of which has been shown by the learned counsel for the appellant, we are also of the view that in the notice, in the last, it is clearly mentioned that non-applicant may be advised to deposit Rs. 600/- for irrigated land and Rs. 120/- for Barani land per bigha by 30.12.1984. Therefore, though in the notice, it is mentioned that Sadhu Singh sold the land before expiry of seven years, but at the same time, non-applicant by the notice was only advised to pay the regularisation amount. Further, it may be noticed that the land was sold in the year 1973 and complaint was submitted in the year 1984, then it was belated by 11 years. Further more, when the proceedings were initiated for cancellation of allotment on the ground of sale of property which took place 11 years ago, then the fact of sale of land was in the knowledge of the Revenue authorities and it was their duty to give notice to the transferor as according to revenue authorities also, Sadhu Singh was not in possession of the property in dispute. 8. In view of the above, service of notice upon Sadhu Singh is of no consequence as he must have lost his interest in 11 years and because of his taking consideration from the purchaser. We do not find in the facts and circumstances of the case that notice to Sadhu Singh alone was sufficient notice for cancellation of allotment where purchaser must have invested some amount during period of 11 years for improving the land in question. We do not find in the facts and circumstances of the case that notice to Sadhu Singh alone was sufficient notice for cancellation of allotment where purchaser must have invested some amount during period of 11 years for improving the land in question. Be that as it may be, the service of notice on Gyan Singh is of no consequence, if he was served without further proof that he was having any lawful authority to represent the purchasers. 9. It will be worthwhile to mention that it is admitted position that the Government land alone could have been disposed of in accordance with rules referred to above and admittedly, on the day when notification for allotment of land was issued i.e. on 2.5.1996, the land in question was not entered in the name of the State or as Government land, then in that situation, sale of land was without following rules. 10. In the totality of facts, it appears that the land which was sold in the year 1973 and which was restored by Revenue authority and by judgment of this Court dated 15.2.2007, after 25 years, we do not want to entertain such a matter where substantial justice has been done. 11. In view of the above reasons, we do not find any merit in the appeal. The appeal is dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******