JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition has been filed by petitioner Badri assailing order passed by Board of Revenue dated 8.9.2009 by which his appeal has been rejected and order passed by Revenue Appellate Authority dated 11.6.2009 and that-of Collector, Tonk, dated 22.9.2004, have been upheld. Petitioner has also assailed these two orders. Petitioner is aggrieved by aforesaid three orders. 2. Briefly stated facts of case are that out of lands of khasra No. 363 measuring 1.34 hectares, and that of khasra No. 367 measuring 0.20 hectare, lands measuring 0.40 hectares from khasra No. 363 and 0.01 hectare from khasra No. 367 were left and remaining lands measuring 0.19 hectare and 0.18 hectare, respectively, situated in Gram Panchayat Badoli, were alloted to Gram Panchayat, Badoli, for construction of Government building etc. 3. Contention of learned counsel for petitioner is that according to Section 92 of Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, such allotment could be made by District Collector, Tonk, only with previous sanction of the Government whereas in present case sanction of Sarpanch has been obtained. Learned counsel relied on notification of the Government dated 1.9.1976 and argued that-according to aforesaid notification the Government has directed that Collector was . not empowered to acquire land for public purpose without obtaining previous sanction of the Government. In present case sanction of the Government has not been obtained. Learned counsel submitted that petitioner is in possession of the disputed land and has got better right to retain that land. His house is situated on land of khasra No. 363 and presently in possession of 0.40 hectare of the land out of khasra. No notice was served, upon petitioner prior to passing of impugned order nor was provided with opportunity of hearing. 4. Per contra, Shri Praveen Jain, learned counsel for respondents, opposed writ petition and submitted that detailed procedure, which is envisaged by Government in the matter of allotment of land to gram Panchayat, has been followed by respondents. On receipt of application of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Badoli, the matter was forwarded to Tehsildar, Deoli who then favourably recommended and thereafter it was sent to S.D.O., Deoli who also recommended for allotment of aforesaid land. Except 0.40. hectare of land out of khasra No. 363 and 0.01 hectare of land out of khasra No. 367, the barren land of 0.01 hectare was allotted to gram panchayat. Except 0.40. hectare of land out of khasra No. 363 and 0.01 hectare of land out of khasra No. 367, the barren land of 0.01 hectare was allotted to gram panchayat. Learned counsel submitted that land was allotted for the purpose of construction of community hall which has actually been constructed. Petitioner was never in possession of land in dispute because he never raised any objection for construction of community hall. It is mily after the status-quo order was passed by this Court that he is forcibly taken possession of part of the land. There is no document on record showing that petitioner was ever in possession of land. Revenue Board specifically, in its order, lias observed that petitioner has orally asserted that he was in possession of land and panchayat-nama which petitioner produced before Board of Revenue was not acepted in evidence. The learned, counsel argued that if petitioner would have been in long possession of land as trespasser, in all certainty he would have been issued notice under Section 92 of the Act. In present case, there is no satisfactory evidence. It is therefore prayed that writ petition be dismissed. 5. On hearing learned counsel for parties and perusing impugned order, I find that panchayat-nama which petitioner sought to produce before Board of Revenue, straightaway was not accepted as evidence because such document was alleged to have been prepared on 17.5.2004 by certain villagers. The application for allotment of land was made by Sarpanch but it is not that Collector straightaway made allotment. As per procedure, Collector forwarded this application to Tehsildar who then examined the matter and recommended inland for allotment. S.D.O., Deoli, also endorsed said recommendation.Board of Revenue although examined contention of petitioner, that he was in possession of land in dispute for last 24-25 years but he could not show any notice issued to him under Section 91 of Land Revenue Act or any khasra girdawari so, as substantiate his this claim. Revenue Appellate Authority also made similar observations and noticed that community hall in size 18.9'x25x9 is already constructed thereon and there is a pucca boundary wall. Report of Nayab Tehsildar which was on record did not indicate any trespass. Even otherwise trespasser cannot claim any right. In view of above, petitioner cannot be o|u.u- 1 to be a trespasser for so long as is claimed now. Report of Nayab Tehsildar which was on record did not indicate any trespass. Even otherwise trespasser cannot claim any right. In view of above, petitioner cannot be o|u.u- 1 to be a trespasser for so long as is claimed now. 1 do not find any infirmity in any of the orders.Writ petition is dismissed. *******