JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition has been filed by petitioner - Kamaluddin Khan with the prayer that the Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Additional Collector (Rehabilitation), Bisalpur Project, Deoli, Tonk be directed to issue award of the land in dispute acquired by the State Government for the purpose of Bisalpur Project and make payment of compensation. 2. Shri R.K. Goyal, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the land bearing Old Khasra No.72 measuring 8 bighas and half bigha of land in Old Khasra No.77 situated at Village Kundera, Tehsil Deoli, District Tonk was allotted to the petitioner under the provisions of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Government Land for Agricultural Purposes) Rules, 1970 (for short, "Rules of 1970") on 6/2/1983 on the recommendations of Allotment Advisory Committee. Petitioner was on 25/6/1989 was further allotted 4 bighas of land in Khasra No.72 and since then he had been cultivating this land. When the settlement took place thereafter, Old Khasra No.72 was divided into five khasra numbers i.e. Khasra No.68/750 measuring 1.73 hectare, Khasra No.66 measuring 0.34 hectare, Khasra No.260 measuring 0.51 hectare, Khasra No.261 Min measuring 0.50 hectare and Khasra No.441 measuring 0.06 hectare, in all five khasra numbers measuring 3.14 hectares of land. State Government issued notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 17/3/1997 for acquisition of the land for construction of Bisalpur Dam. Though land of the petitioner actually fall within the submergence area of dam, but due to mistake at the time of 'Milan Kshetraphal' prepared by the Settlement Department, the lands of new Khasra Nos.68/750 measuring 1.73 hectare and Khasra No.66 measuring 0.34 hectare was shown as the land of Old No.2 whereas, Old Khasra number was 72; therefore the Land Acquisition Officer refused to make payment of compensation to the petitioner. Petitioner submitted a representation to the Additional Collector Tonk, who vide its letter dated 10/10/2003 advised petitioner to file a suit for correction of the entries in the revenue record if any error has been taken place due to mistake committed by the Settlement Department. Petitioner thereupon filed suit for declaration and correction of the entries in the revenue record, which was decreed by the learned Sub Divisional Officer, Deoli vide order dated 14/6/2004 in his favour. Respondents thereafter approached the Tehsildar Deoli for making a reference to the District Collector under Section 82 of the Land Acquisition Act. Petitioner thereupon filed suit for declaration and correction of the entries in the revenue record, which was decreed by the learned Sub Divisional Officer, Deoli vide order dated 14/6/2004 in his favour. Respondents thereafter approached the Tehsildar Deoli for making a reference to the District Collector under Section 82 of the Land Acquisition Act. District Collector Tonk rejected the application of the Tehsildar Deoli for making reference holding that it was a simple case of mistake, which has been corrected by the S.D.O. vide its judgment dated 14/6/2004. Tehsildar Deoli vide his letter dated 1/11/2004 informed the Additional Collector, Bisalpur Project, Deoli that petitioner was recorded khatedar in the Jamabandi of Samwat year 2058-2061 and no State interest was involved. Even then, the compensation was not paid to the petitioner. 3. Shri R.K. Goyal, learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that reason why the respondents withheld payment of compensation to the petitioner was assigned that khatedari rights were conferred upon the petitioner even before completion of ten years as per requirement of Rule 18 of the Rules of 1970 and mutation was wrongly attested in his favour. Reference was made by the District Collector Tonk to the Board of Revenue and the mutation was ordered to be cancelled but that was limited for the purpose that according to Rule 18 supra, khatedari rights could not be conferred upon the petitioner before ten years. However on expiry of period of ten years, petitioner would automatically get the khatedari rights. Payment of compensation in any case could not be denied to the petitioner because his land was actually taken possession by the respondents in the year 1997 and was lying in the submerged dam area. Neither any compensation was paid to the petitioner nor any alternative land has been allotted to him. It was also argued that other land holders, whose lands were also acquired were paid compensation as per Section 23A of the Land Acquisition Act but the petitioner was not. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the Board of Revenue erred in law in its judgment by holding that the khatedari rights could not be conferred upon the petitioner because he did not fulfill the requirement of provisions of Rule 14(3) of the Rules of 1970 and did not cultivate the land. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the Board of Revenue erred in law in its judgment by holding that the khatedari rights could not be conferred upon the petitioner because he did not fulfill the requirement of provisions of Rule 14(3) of the Rules of 1970 and did not cultivate the land. It is argued that this was not an issue before the Board of Revenue and for cancellation of the allotment on that ground the procedure contained in Rule 11 of the Rules of 1970 was required to be followed. Even otherwise, land acquisition proceedings are liable to be declared illegal and non est having elapsed in Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act because no award was passed within two years from the date of issuing of the notifications under Section 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act on 12/3/1997 but petitioner is cognizant of the fact that land is actually fell in the submerged dam area and that for that purpose, therefore he would have no objection even now when passing a formal award of compensation is passed. 4. Shri Hemant Mathur, learned Deputy Government Counsel appearing for the State has opposed the writ petition and argued that since title of the petitioner was not clear, he could not be paid compensation. He was wrongly granted khatedari rights even before completion of ten years contrary to Rule 18 of the Rules of 1970. It is argued that mutation earlier attested in favour of the petitioner was ordered to be cancelled by the judgment of Board of Revenue dated 16/4/2003. Learned counsel in this connection has referred to the orders of the Board of Revenue Ann.R/3 and Ann.R/4. It is argued that the Board of Revenue held that the land was being acquired for public purposes and therefore according to Section 16 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, no khatedari rights would be conferred on such land and therefore petitioner could not be paid any compensation. 5. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I find myself unable to agree with the vexatious plea that by invocation of Section 16 of the Land Revenue Act, land of a citizen can be acquired without compensation because khetedari rights cannot be conferred on the analogy that the land is need for public purpose. 5. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I find myself unable to agree with the vexatious plea that by invocation of Section 16 of the Land Revenue Act, land of a citizen can be acquired without compensation because khetedari rights cannot be conferred on the analogy that the land is need for public purpose. If this were the logic, no other khatears would be entitled to receive compensation, whereas all of them were paid compensation. Judgment of the Board of Revenue dated 16/4/2003 was passed on a Reference on the question of correctness of mutation attested in favour of the petitioner with reference to land bearing Khasra No.72, even before completion of ten years. Board of Revenue has also in its order referred to Rule 18 of the notification dated 17/5/1999 wherein, it is provided that the S.D.O. shall decide to suo moto confer khatedari rights upon allottees after ten years of allotment provided that the allotee fulfils all the terms and conditions of allotment during this period. Even though in the case of petitioner, khatedari rights were conferred earlier than completion of ten years and mutation was attested on that basis, cancellation of mutation does not mean that subsequently upon completion of ten years, petitioner would not be entitled for khatedari rights. Allotment made to the petitioner was never cancelled by any other authority. Issue before the Board of Revenue was limited as to the validity of attestation of mutation and conferment of khatedari rights prior to completion of ten years. Board of Revenue could not have therefore decided the other issues against the petitioner. Petitioner could not have been denied compensation as the Tehsildar Deoli himself in his letter dated 1/11/2004 conveyed to the Additional Collector (Rehabilitation), Bisalpur Project, Deoli, Tonk that no interest of the State was involved and petitioner was recorded khatedar in the Jamabandi of Samwat year 2058-2061. Board of Revenue could not have without the sufficient material before it on the question of violation of Rule 14(3) of the Rules of 1970 held that allotment was liable to be cancelled when actually this was not an issue before the Board of Revenue and allotment was not cancelled on that ground. Board of Revenue could not have without the sufficient material before it on the question of violation of Rule 14(3) of the Rules of 1970 held that allotment was liable to be cancelled when actually this was not an issue before the Board of Revenue and allotment was not cancelled on that ground. Reference was made to the Board of Revenue whether grant of khatedari rights to the petitioner and attestation of mutation in his favour even before completion of ten years was followed as per Rule 18 supra. Now that the petitioner has given his consent for receiving compensation, despite the proceedings having been elapsed, respondents ought to pay him compensation. 6. Keeping in view the practical aspects of the matter that the land is actually falling within the submergence area of Bisalpur Dam, petitioner is held entitled to receive compensation at the same rate on which it was paid to other land holders whose adjoining lands were also acquired by the State Government. 7. In the result, writ petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to pay compensation to the petitioner together with statutory rate of interest as per Section 23A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 8. Compliance of the judgment shall be made within a period of three months from the date copy of this judgment is produced before the respondents.Writ Petition Allowed. *******