TIWARI, M.—This is a second appeal under Section 76of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act 1956 (in short `the Act') against the impugned judgment dated 2.12.08 of Settlement Officer-cum-Revenue Appellate Authority Jaipur passed in appeal No. 2/07. 2. The facts, in brief, leading to the second appeal are that the respondent No. 1 Ramesh Chand was allotted disputed land under Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Land for Agricultural Purposes) Rules 1970 (in short `the Allotment Rules of 1970') on 21.12.04 against which the appellant-applicant filed an application under rule 14(4) of the allotment Rules of 1970 for cancellation of allotment before Additional District Collector Dausa who by his impugned judgment dated 31.8.06 dismissed the application, aggrieved against which the appellant filed first appeal under Section 75 of the Act before Revenue Appellate Authority Jaipur who by his impugned judgment dated 2.12.08 dismissed the appeal. Hence the second appeal. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that at the time of allotment the disputed land was an occupied land being in possession of the appellant; as such it was not available for the allotment even then the land under consideration was allotted to the respondent No. 1 ignoring the claim, right and possession of the appellant. Both the lower courts have ignored this material fact and possession. As such impugned judgments of both the lower courts should be quashed. 5. I have given thoughtful consideration to the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant. 6. The appellant is claiming right to allotment of the disputed land on the basis of his alleged possession pleading that the land under consideration was an occupied land not available for the allotment. Section 5(27) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act wherein an `occupied land' is defined is reproduced below:- "(27) "Occupied land" shall mean land which for the time being has been let out to, and is in the occupation of, a tenant and shall include khudkasht, and "unoccupied land" shall mean land which is not occupied." It is evident from the perusal of the above cited definition that only such land would be considered `occupied' which has been `let out' or is in occupation of a `tenant'. In the case under consideration, the disputed land was neither let out to the appellant nor appellant is in occupation of the disputed land as a tenant. Thus, the disputed land cannot be considered as `occupied land' at the time of its allotment to the respondent No.1. Presuming for the sake of argument that the appellant was in possession of the land, his possession would be treated only as a trespass and trespassed land is never considered as an occupied land in the eye of law. 7. Under rule 14(4) of the Allotment Rules of 1970 an allotment can only be cancelled when it has been secured through fraud or misrepresentation or has been made against the Rules or in case the allotte has committed breach of any of the conditions of allotment. These factual aspects have been examined and adjudicated upon by both the lower courts of Additional Collector and Settlement Officer-cum-Revenue Appellate Authority. These is concurrent finding of facts of both the lower courts that there is no violation of the provisions of Rule 14(4) of the Allotment Rules of 1970. As such the concurrent finding of facts of both the lower courts do not warrant any interference in the second appeal. 8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the second appeal is not maintainable and is dismissed in limine. Pronounced.