Honble ROY, CJ.—Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the order impugned. 2. Grievance of the appellant before the writ Court was that the land in question which was settled in his name could not have been cancelled as nature of the land had changed to sewai chak land. It is undisputed that the land in question initially belonged to a Scheduled Caste member. However, the same was converted in sewai chak land by virtue of Section 175 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act and, thereafter, it is said to have been settled in favour of the appellant. Subsequently, this settlement as such was cancelled in view of provisions of sub-rule (3) of Rule 6 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Land for Agriculture Purposes) Rules, 1970. 3. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 6 makes manifest that the land belonging to a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe which vests in the State Government under Section 175 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act shall be allotted only to a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, respectively under the provisions of these rules. 4. Validity of Rule 6(3) was upheld by this Court in case of Madan Singh vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors., 1997(1) W.L.C. (Raj.) 510. 5. In view of the reasoned aforementioned, the order impugned cannot be faulted. This appeal is accordingly dismissed.