Judgment Hon'ble TIWARI, M.—This is a reference under Section 232 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (in short `the Act') against the order dated 13.6.1985 of Assistant Colonisation Commissioner Kolayat, made by Collector and Dy. Colonisation Commissioner Bikaner. 2. The facts, in brief, are that on-applicant filed a suit under section 88 of the Act before Assistant Colonisation Commissioner Kolayat for declaration of his khatedari right on the basis of possession on the land in question, whereupon Assistant Colonisation Commissioner decreed the suit and conferred gair-khatedari right on the non-applicant-plaintiff. Considering this order of Assistant Colonisation Commissioner as illegal and contrary to the provisions of law, Collector has made the instant reference. 3. I have heard both the learned counsels. 4. The learned Dy. Govt. Advocate has argued that the disputed land is a ceiling surplus land acquired in favour of the State Government. In ceiling affected acquired land khatedari right cannot be granted. But Assistant Colonization Commissioner has acted illegally in declaring the non-applicant as gair-khatedar of the ceiling surplus land. The impugned order is not based on any record or evidence and is contrary to the provisions of law. As such reference should be accepted. 5. The learned counsel for the non-applicant has argued that the disputed land belonged to Thakur Mehtab Singh, who had let out this land to the non-applicant, who had been in possession of the land since before the coming into force of the Act; as such he had acquired khatedari right by operation of law. The reference is time barred and cannot be entertained. The impugned order is an appealable order but no appeal was preferred against it. As such reference is not maintainable. 6. I have given thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions, perused the impugned judgment and carefully gone through the record available on the file. 7. Perusal of the impugned order dated 13.6.1985 of Assistant Colonisation Commissioner shows that he has declared the non-applicant as gair-khatedar of the disputed land. It is also admitted in the impugned judgment that the disputed land belonged to ex-jagirdar Thakur Mehtab Singh and was acquired as ceiling surplus land. The non-applicant is conferred gair-khatedari right on the basis of possession. Apparently, the order of Assistant Colonisation Commissioner is patently illegal. A person cannot be declared as gair-khatedar of a land which is acquired as ceiling surplus land. The non-applicant is conferred gair-khatedari right on the basis of possession. Apparently, the order of Assistant Colonisation Commissioner is patently illegal. A person cannot be declared as gair-khatedar of a land which is acquired as ceiling surplus land. When a land is acquired as ceiling surplus land it means that such and belonged to a khatedar tenant who had held land in excess of the ceiling limit. Obviously, the non-applicant cannot be declared gair-khatedar under section 88 of the Act of such ceiling surplus land which belonged to a ceiling affected khatedar tenant. 8. There is provision of granting khatedari rights under Section 15 and 19 of the Act. The Assistant Colonisation Commissioner has not stated whether he was granting khatedari right under Section 15 or under Section 19 of the Act. Neither the provisions of Section 15 nor the provisions of Section 19 of the Act are discussed nor is it explained as to how does any provision of either of the sections apply to the non-applicant. There is no evidence on record to show that the non-applicant qualifies to obtain khatedari right under Section 15 or 19 of the Act. It is also worth mentioning here that the limitation period for claiming khatedari right under Section 15 or 19 of the Act is already over. It is also noteworthy here that Assistant Colonisation Commissioner has declared the non-applicant as gair-khatedar and not khatedar. Gair khatedari right is accruable only after allotment of a government land and not otherwise. 9. This reference is made in one year. There is no period of limitation prescribed under the Act for making reference. Looking to the diverse formalities involved in the functioning of the government machinery, this Court has taken liberal view in respect of making this reference with regard to limitation. 10. In view of the above discussion, it is evident that the order of Assistant Colonisation Commissioner Kolayat is patently illegal, arbitrary and against the provisions of law. Such an order can also be challenged by making reference under Section 232 of the Act. 11. Resultantly, the reference is accepted, the impugned order dated 13.6.1985 of Assistant Colonisation Commissioner Kolayat is quashed. Pronounced.