JUDGMENT 1. - Instant writ petition has been filed, under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India by which the petitioner-plaintiff is challenging the validity of judgment and decree passed by the Assistant Collector, Jaisalmer dated 30.9.2000 (Annex.-11) whereby the suit filed by original plaintiff Manka Ram under Sections 88, 89 and 91, Rajasthan Tenancy Act for granting khatedari of 10 bigha land situated in khasra No. 71 and 10 bigha land in khasra No. 72 of village Bara Bagh (jaisalmer) was dismissed. The petitioner is further challenging the judgment passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority dated 30.3.2001 in appeal whereby the appeal of the original plaintiff Manka Ram was dismissed, so also judgment rendered by the Board of Revenue in Appeal No. 4562/2001, dated 10.4.2012 whereby the Board of Revenue has also dismissed the appeal filed by Manka Ram through his legal heir Leeladhar. 2. The main contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that although initially the land was allotted for three years in accordance with the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Land for Agricultural Purposes) Rules, 1957 on 26.8.1967 in jaisalmer district but, later on the said proviso was deleted in the rules vide notification dated 31.10.1968. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as soon as the proviso is deleted the plaintiff Manka Ram became entitled for declaration of khatedari rights but this aspect of the matter has not been considered by any of the Court below, therefore, all the orders/judgments impugned deserve to be quashed. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that since allotment the petitioner is in possession and allotment was made in the year 1967 which is not cancelled till today, therefore, the denial of granting khatedari rights to the petitioner is totally erroneous. The petitioner is in possession over the land in question since 1967 and, therefore, on the basis of his old possession also the petitioner is entitled for khatedari rights. 4. The petitioner is in possession over the land in question since 1967 and, therefore, on the basis of his old possession also the petitioner is entitled for khatedari rights. 4. It is pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner that right from Assistant Collector, Jaisalmer up to the Board of Revenue it was very much within the knowledge of all the Courts below that the original plaintiff Manka Ram came in possession over the land in question on the basis of valid allotment in his favour on 26.8.1967 and no cancellation order is passed by the respondent department, therefore, this aspect of the matter was to be considered in right perspective because the petitioner is in possession since 1967 over the land in question. In this view of the matter, the orders/judgments impugned may be quashed. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner I have perused Rule 14 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Land for Agricultural Purposes) Rules, 1957 which reads as follows: "14. Conditions of allotment-(1) The allotment of land under these rules shall be on a gair khatedari tenancy with a right to ultimate conferment of khatedari rights after the expiry of a period of ten years provided that the allottee fulfils, during this period, the terms and conditions of allotment. Until khatedari rights are conferred, the allottee shall have all rights and be subject to all the liabilities of a gair khatedar tenant under the Tenancy Act: Provided that in the following district the allotment shall be made for a period of three years only: (i) Jodhpur except Bilara Tehsil. (ii) Banner except Siwana Tehsil. (iii) Jaisalmer. (iv) Nagaur. (v) Bikaner. (vi) Churu. 6. Admittedly, allotment of land was made in favour of the original plaintiff in Jaisalmer area and in Jaisalmer area allotment was to be made only for three years. The above fact is not in dispute but the plaintiff is claiming his right for khatedari rights on the basis of the argument that the land in question was allotted under the proviso for making allotment in the Jaisalmer area which was subsequently deleted, therefore, the plaintiff became entitled for khatedari rights. 7. The above fact is not in dispute but the plaintiff is claiming his right for khatedari rights on the basis of the argument that the land in question was allotted under the proviso for making allotment in the Jaisalmer area which was subsequently deleted, therefore, the plaintiff became entitled for khatedari rights. 7. In my opinion, there is complete fallacy in the argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner because allotment was made in favour of the original plaintiff in the year 1967 and for granting khatedari right the plaintiff filed suit on 2.9.1992 much after completion of three years from the date of allotment; meaning thereby, the suit was filed by a person who was not holding any right on the date of filing suit for granting khatedari rights because the term of allotment of three years as per the proviso to Rule 14 expired in the year 1970. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner with regard to his claim deserves to be rejected because he himself waived his right as he did not raise voice for granting khatedari right for near about 22 years. In the view of the matter, it cannot be said that claim of the petitioner is founded on any sound ground; more so, all the Courts below while taking into consideration the relevant provisions of the rule which was in existence on the date of allotment i.e. 26.8.1967 rightly adjudicated the matter and rejected the petitioners claim for granting khatedari rights. 8. In view of the above there is no error in the concurrent finding given by all the Court below right from Assistant Collector up to Board of Revenue, Ajmer in their respective judgment. Therefore, I am not inclined to interfere in the judgments impugned in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India.Hence, this writ petition is hereby dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******