JUDGMENT 1. - The present writ petitions have been filed by the State, Colonization Department through the Secretary, Revenue (Colonization) being aggrieved by the order of the learned Board of Revenue dated 10.8.2010 (Annexure-S), whereby the learned Board of Revenue upheld the order of the Colonization Commissioner, Bikaner dated 31.10.1991, whereby the learned Commissioner (Colonization), Bikaner had upheld the allotment of land under the Rajasthan Colonization (Allotment and Sale of the Government Land in Indira Gandhi Canal Colony Area) Rules, 1975 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 1975 Rules') in favour of private respondents. 2. After holding enquiry that these respondents were bona fide agriculturists and were landless persons, these allotments were made on 31.1.1985. However, on an unanimous complaint made on 25.6.1985, an inquiry was held in the matter by the aforesaid Colonization Commissioner and he held vide the order dated 31.10.1991 that private respondents were bonafide agriculturists and the allotment of land under 1975 Rules in their favour was justified and proceedings initiated against them for cancellation of allotment under Rule 22(3) of the 1975 Rules, were dropped. 3. The State Government filed revision petitions against the order dated 31.10.1991 of Colonization Commissioner before the learned Board of Revenue and the learned Single Member of the Board of Revenue vide the order dated 23.9.1996 (Annexure-2) set aside the order of the Colonization Commissioner dated 31.10.1991 and restored the matter back to him for making a deep and proper enquiry in the matter including his own visit to the agricultural land in question and pass fresh orders within six months from that date. The review petition(s) filed by the private respondents against the said order of Board of Revenue dated 23.9.1996 came to be dismissed vide the order Annexure-3 dated 24.9.1997. 4. The review petition(s) filed by the private respondents against the said order of Board of Revenue dated 23.9.1996 came to be dismissed vide the order Annexure-3 dated 24.9.1997. 4. Upon the enquiry being made on the complaint filed against the said allotment made in favour of private respondents on 31.1.1985, a report of then Tehsildar, Kolayat No. 45, Bikampur was also made to the Assistant Colonization Commissioner vide Annexure-5 dated 29.4.1988, in which it was stated that such allotment made in favour 18 members of same family was wrong because this family had shifted to Kolkata about 80 years back from the purported allotment made in the year 1985 and their four residential houses in the said Village Bikampur, were lying closed and two of them were in dilapidated condition; and these family members were doing cloth business at Kolkata. The then Naib- Tehsildar, also made similar report, copy whereof is Annexure-6 to the writ petitioner dated 31.3.1990. 5. The private respondents, namely, Rajesh Kumar Mohta, challenged the said order of the Board of Revenue dated 23.9.1996 before this Court and the said batch of 20 writ petitions came to be disposed of by a co-ordinate bench of this Court on 23.4.2009 in S.B.C.W.P. No. 285/1998, Rajesh Kumar Mohta v. State of Rajasthan & Ors . The learned Single judge of this Court vide the order dated 23.4.2009 set aside the order of Board of Revenue dated 23.3.1996 and review rejection order dated 24.9.1997 and restored the matter back to the learned Board of Revenue for deciding the revision petitions of the State afresh. 6. The relevant extract of the order of the co-ordinate bench of this Court is reproduced hereunder for ready reference: "In the given status of record, when the Commissioner Colonisation had passed the order after enquiry and after taking the relevant evidence, it cannot be said that only the reports as made on 29.4.1988 and 31.10.1990 were conclusive of the matter or that every _piece of evidence was required to be examined on the touch stone of such reports. In any case, the observations as made by the learned Member about the Commissioner having not made enquiry in thorough detail or deeply are rather too insufficient to justify the order of remand by the Revisional Authority. In any case, the observations as made by the learned Member about the Commissioner having not made enquiry in thorough detail or deeply are rather too insufficient to justify the order of remand by the Revisional Authority. While dealing with the revision petitions against the considered and reasoned order of the learned Commissioner, it was definitely expected of the learned Member of the Board to have examined the findings as recorded by the Commissioner and to have set aside such findings, if at all they were to be set aside on cogent reasons, before considering remand of the matters. The orders as passed by the learned Member of the Board not dealing with all the reasonings and considerations that have prevailed with the Commissioner and merely making a remand with reference to preliminary inquiry reports, cannot be approved. It is noticed that before the learned Commissioner, even the Government Counsel ultimately conceded that there was no cogent evidence on record against the allottees. The submissions as made on behalf of the petitioners appear correct that all the reasonings and considerations of the learned Commissioner have not been given adequate consideration by the learned Member of the Board.. It appears that the fact of allotment of land to 18 persons of the same family itself has given rise to suspicion and such suspicion has weighed heavily with the learned Member of the Board to consider something fishy in the matter and for that reason alone, the order as passed by the Commissioner has been set aside. It was definitely expected of the learned Member of the Board while dealing with the revision petitions to have considered and dealt with all the reasonings that prevailed with the learned Commissioner and also to have considered if there was a jurisdictional error warranting interference before setting aside the order impugned. Though the submissions as attempted on behalf of the petitioners that revision petitions were required to be dismissed on the ground of delay cannot be countenanced and there appears no reason as to why the revision petitions were not to be decided on merits but then, the manner of decision of the revision petitions by the Board cannot be approved. Though the submissions as attempted on behalf of the petitioners that revision petitions were required to be dismissed on the ground of delay cannot be countenanced and there appears no reason as to why the revision petitions were not to be decided on merits but then, the manner of decision of the revision petitions by the Board cannot be approved. In the aforesaid view of the matter, it appears appropriate that while setting aside the orders passed by the Board of Revenue, respective revision petitions be restored to their number; and the Board be required to decide the same afresh after extending an opportunity of hearing to both the parties and after examining the entire material available on record. This Court would hasten to clarify that observations herein would not in any manner have any bearing on the merits of the case that is left to be examined by the concerned authorities in accordance with law. As a result of the aforesaid, these, writ petitions succeed and are allowed to the extent indicated above; the impugned orders dated 24.9.1997 and 23.9.1996 are set aside; and the revision petitions shall stand restored for re-consideration of the Board of Revenue in accordance with law. The parties present before this Court shall stand at notice to appear before the Board of Revenue in the respective revision petitions on 28.5.2009. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs." 7. After the remand by this Court to the learned Board of Revenue, the learned Board of Revenue has decided again the 12 revision petitions viz. Revision/Col./4299/09/Bikaner, State of Rajasthan v. Viiay Kumar S/o Balkishan Mohta & Ors ., vide the order Annexure-8 dated 10.8.2010, by which the learned Single Member of the Board of Revenue this time upheld the order of the Colonization Commissioner, Bikaner, dated 31.10.1991 as aforesaid; and aggrieved by the same, the State has approached this Court by the present batch of writ petitions, which are being decided by this common order. 8. 8. The petitioner-State has also produced alongwith their writ petition the copy of the report Annexure-9 dated 16.9.1985 of the Additional Colonization Commissioner (Vigilance), Bikaner and also Annexure-10, report of the Patwar Mandal, Bikaner dated 12.12.1996 purportedly reporting that the private respondents in whose favour allotments were made on 31.1.1985, were not bona fide agriculturists or landless persons of the said Village Bikampur; and consequently the allotments in question deserves to be cancelled. These reports Annexure-9 dated 16.9.1985 and Annexure-10 dated 13.12.1996 do not appear to have been produced before the learned Board of Revenue even while the revision petitions filed by the State were being decided upon a remand by this Court on 10.8.2010. 9. Mr. R.L. Jangid, AAG and Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Rajesh Bhati, urged that the learned Board of Revenue has erred in not upholding the remand made in the previous order of the Board of Revenue, which was made vide the order dated 23.9.1996, which was made for cogent reasons and to hold the objective and bona fide fresh enquiry in the matter as to whether the private respondents were really landless persons or bona fide agriculturists of the said Village Bikampur or not and therefore, they were not entitled to allotment of land under 1975 Rules. Since, there was adequate material on record to indicate that family of these private respondents had shifted to Kolkata long back, they could not be taken as landless and bona fide agriculturists and entitled to allotment of land under the 1975 Rules and in the face of this material, the learned Board of Revenue has erred in putting a seal of confirmation on the order of learned Colonization Commissioner dated 31.10.1991 by the impugned order and therefore, the present writ petitions filed by the State deserves to be allowed and the matter deserve to be restored to the Colonization Commissioner, Bikaner for holding such enquiry in the matter again. 10. Per contra, Mr. J.L. Purohit, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. 10. Per contra, Mr. J.L. Purohit, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Rajeev Purohit, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently supported the impugned order of the learned Board of Revenue dated 10.8.2010 and submitted that the order dated 31.10.1991 was passed by the Colonization Commissioner, Bikaner after due and proper enquiry and recording the statements of independent persons including the then Tehsildar and Patwari, who had clearly stated before the said Commissioner that private respondents were bonafide agriculturists and had no other business than the agriculture at Bikampur and therefore, the earlier remand made by the Board of Revenue vide order dated 23.9.1996 was bad in law and that is why this Court had set aside that order and restored the matter back to the Board of Revenue for passing fresh orders and the learned Board of Revenue has rightly upheld that order dated 31.10.1991 by the impugned order; and no interference with the same is called for in the present batch of writ petitions filed by the State. 11. Mr. J.L. Purohit, also urged that as far as Annexure-9 report dated 16.9.1985 and Annexure-10 report dated 13.12.1996 are concerned, one fails to understand that why these reports, if they existed in the contemporary period, were not produced before the learned Board of Revenue despite the remand made at the instance of the private respondents by a co-ordinate bench of this Court vide order dated 23.4.2009 and therefore, an adverse inference deserves to be drawn against the State and such reports Annexures-9 and 10 deserves to be ignored and the writ petitions filed by the State deserved to be dismissed. 12. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record including the impugned order. 13. The 1975 Rules envisage the allotment and sale of Government land in command area of I.G.N.P. to the landless and poor agriculturists. The term "landless" has been defined in the 1975 Rules in Clause 2(XIII) as under: "(xiii). 12. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record including the impugned order. 13. The 1975 Rules envisage the allotment and sale of Government land in command area of I.G.N.P. to the landless and poor agriculturists. The term "landless" has been defined in the 1975 Rules in Clause 2(XIII) as under: "(xiii). Landless Persons means a person who, (i) is a resident of Rajasthan, and (ii) has been by profession a bona fide agriculturist or a bonafide agricultural labourer, having agriculture as the primary source of his income and who either does not hold any land anywhere in India or holds had less than 25 bighas, but it does not include temporary cultivation Land holder: Provided that a person holding continuously since before 1.4.1955 only barani land in a village may surrender that land in favour of Government free of cost and on acceptance of such surrender, he will also be treated as a landless person of that village. In case he is not allotted any command land within a year of such surrender, he can revoke the surrender of the land made by him. Provided further that a released 'Sagri' is certified by the Sub-Divisional Officer will also be treated as landless person of that village. Provided further that the following categories of person shall not be deemed to be landless person, namely: (a) an employee other than a casual or work charged employee of the Government or of a commercial or industrial establishment or concern, his wife, and children dependent on him. (b) a person who has sold or otherwise transferred the whole or part of the land held by, or allotted to him other than land transferred to or acquired by the Government or statutory bodies and thereby reduces the size of his holding to become a landless, person. Explanation.-For the purpose of this proviso 'Sagri' means the bonded labourer as defined in the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976 (Central Act 19 of 1976)." 14. Rules 21 and 22 of the 1975 Rules, which -deal with cancellation of allotment and powers of Colonization Officer, are also reproduced hereunder for. ready reference: "Rule 21. Cancellation of Allotment. Explanation.-For the purpose of this proviso 'Sagri' means the bonded labourer as defined in the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976 (Central Act 19 of 1976)." 14. Rules 21 and 22 of the 1975 Rules, which -deal with cancellation of allotment and powers of Colonization Officer, are also reproduced hereunder for. ready reference: "Rule 21. Cancellation of Allotment. - If at any time it is discovered that any allotment of Government land was made under these rules upon an incorrect statement of facts made in the application or in the affidavit or any other document produced by an allottee, the Allotting Authority, may order cancellation of such allotment and may also order re-entry upon and taking possession of the land without payment of any compensation: Provided that no such order shall be made without giving the person, likely to be affected thereby, an opportunity of being heard. Rule 22. Powers of Colonisation Officer.-(1) The Colonisation Commissioner,, the Allotting Authority and the Colonisation Tehsildar shall exercise power conferred by and perform the functions assigned to them under these rules. (2) The Colonisation Commissioner will have the power to issue instructions to all Colonisation Officers subordinate to him laying down the procedure for preparation of record in regard to allotment of land and to carry out the purpose of these rules. (3) The Colonisation Commissioner shall have the power to cancel any allotment made by an Allotting Authority under these rules either suo moto or on the application of any person in a case where the allotment has been made against the rules: Provided that no such order to the prejudice of any person shall be passed without giving such person an opportunity of being heard." 15. From the bare perusal of the aforesaid provisions, it is clear that in the first instance while such allotment is required to be made to the bona fide landless agriculturists, who otherwise did not possess agricultural land enough to meet their requirement and to provide them a source of livelihood, but at the same time allotment, if any made, in their favour, can also be cancelled by the Competent Authority if such allotment is procured upon misrepresentation of the facts. The question arising before this Court is that as to whether the enquiry into the matter at the hands of the Competent Authority once again deserves to be prevented or deserves to be allowed at his stage. It is true that the Colonization Commissioner earlier made an order dated 31.10.1991 putting a seal of imprimatur on such allotment made in favour of private respondents on 31.1.1985, after holding an enquiry in the matter upon a complaint made against such allotments and statements of certain persons including the then Tehsildar and Patwari and the allotting authority were recorded by the Colonization Commissioner while upholding such allotments made in favour of private respondents but the adverse reports against the private respondents like Annexure-5 dated 29.4.1988 of the Tehsildar, Colonization and Annexure-6 dated 31.3.1990 of the Naib-Tehsildar and so also, Annexure-9 dated 16.9.1985 by the Additional Colonization Commissioner (Vigilance), Bikaner as well as Annexure- 10 dated 13.12.1996 of Patwar Mandal, Bikaner do not appear to have been adequately considered by the learned Colonization Commissioner while passing the order dated 31.10.1991, also because Annexures-9 and 10 reports were not even place before him. 16. The glaring fact, which strikes this Court even now is that when the allegations against the private respondents were to the extent of their having shifted to Kolkata about 80 years back and they were doing cloth business for last such a long period, why no documentary evidence was led by any of the parties, which could establish such facts as to whether they were really doing business at Kolkata of cloth business or were rich people and not landless bona fide agriculturists and were regularly residing in the said Village Bikampur, was not produced before the said authority. The documentary evidence like Voter List, Ration Card, Water and Electricity Bills, Income-tax returns and Driving Licences, etc., are such usual documentary evidence, which establish the usual place of residence, nature of business, financial standing, etc., of various persons. The Colonization Commissioner while holding enquiry and before passing the order dated 31.10.1991 did not choose to summon and direct production of any of such documentary evidence. The respondents should have been called upon to produce documentary evidence to rebut allegations against them and support the genuineness of their allotments. The Colonization Commissioner while holding enquiry and before passing the order dated 31.10.1991 did not choose to summon and direct production of any of such documentary evidence. The respondents should have been called upon to produce documentary evidence to rebut allegations against them and support the genuineness of their allotments. The fact remains that in the present case, none of such things have been established by both the parties and merely on the basis of some self-serving statements recorded by the Colonization Commissioner in favour of private respondents, the impugned order dated 31.10.1991 was passed by him putting a seal of confirmation of such allotment, genuineness of which was seriously doubted in the subsequent reports upon complaints being made in the matter. 17. The purpose and intention of 1975 Rules is not to make rich people or business people, land owners of more land but the purpose of the 1975 Rules is to provide the source of livelihood to poor and bona fide agriculturists by allotting and selling Government land to the landless persons, who are bona fide agriculturists residing in that area. The subsequent reports given by the public authorities upon complaint made, prima facie indicated that the private respondents were not regularly residing at the said Village Bikampur even from the time prior to 1985 as would appear as Annexure-5 report dated 29.4.1988 and also the Annexure-9 report dated 16.9.1985 that there was neither any water or electricity connection in their names, nor residential houses were occupied nor their names figured in the local Voters' list of said village, and any document with regard to educational qualification from local schools, etc. If they were doing regular cloth business at Kolkata, their income-tax or sales-tax assessment records also could have been summoned to see the truth. This Court is of the opinion that without holding any such proper enquiry, the seal of approval was put by the learned Colonization Commissioner on the allotment vide Order dated 31.10.1991, which does not stand on firmer footing and much was left to be desired. 18. Truth is the guiding star in judicial process and that is what should guide the dispensation of justice. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maria Margardia Sequeira Fernandes & Ors. 18. Truth is the guiding star in judicial process and that is what should guide the dispensation of justice. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maria Margardia Sequeira Fernandes & Ors. v. Erasmo Jack De Sequeria, reported in (2012) 5 SCC 370 , detaining the four types of possession under property law; Easements Act, 1882, Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and Specific Relief Act, 1963, dealing with a case of a well know and respected Christian family of Goa where the permissive and free of cost possession of suit premises was given by a sister to her brother as caretaker, while the sister with her husband was out of Goa in relation to his service in Navy and which brother illegally denied her possession of her own house with title undisputed for 20 longs years. The Hon'ble Supreme Court allowing the sister's appeal with costs of Rs. 50,000/- and mesne profits of Rs. 1 lac per month for the residential house, held in Paras 32 to 36 as under: "Truth as guiding star in judicial process 32. In this unfortunate litigation, the Court's serious endeavour has to be to find out where in fact the truth lies. 33. The truth should be the guiding star in the entire judicial process. Truth alone has to be the foundation of justice. The entire judicial system has been created only to discern and find out the real truth. Judges at all levels have to seriously engage themselves tin the journey of discovering the truth. That is their mandate, obligation and bounden duty. justice system will acquire credibility only when people will be convinced that justice is based on the foundation of the truth. 34. In Mohanlal Shmnji Soni v. Union of India, 1991 Supp. (1) SCC 271 , this Court observed that in such a situation a question that arises for consideration is whether the Presiding Officer of a Court should simply sit as a mere umpire at a contest between two parties and declare at the end of the combat who has won and who has lost or is there not any legal duty of his own, independent of the parties to take an active role in the proceedings in finding the truth and administering justice? It is a well accepted and settled principle that a Court must discharge its statutory functions-whether discretionary or obligatory- according to law in dispensing justice because it is the duty of a Court not only to do justice but also to ensure that justice is being done. 35. What people expect is that the Court should discharge its obligation to find out where in fact the truth lies. Right from inception of the judicial system it has been accepted that discovery, vindication and establishment of truth are the main purposes underlying the existence of the Courts of justice. 36. In Ritesh Tewari & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors., (2010) 10 SCC 677 , this Court reproduced often quoted quotation which reads as under: "..... Every trial is voyage of discovery in which truth is the quest." ...... The quest of truth continues ...... also in the case." 19. Despite the first remand order by the learned Board of Revenue upon revision petitions filed by the State vide Annexure-2, order dated 23.9.1996, since upon a challenge made before this Court, that order was set aside and the matter was again remanded back to the Board of Revenue, the learned Single Member of Board of Revenue appears to have chosen a shorter and more convenient way of dismissing the revision petitions filed by the State instead of either holding detailed enquiry at its own level in proper manner or further remanding the case back to the Colonization Commissioner for holding such enquiry. 20. This Court is, therefore, of the opinion that the enquiry in such cases and upon such facts and allegations does not deserve to be prevented but it should be held in proper manner to arrive at appropriate, reasonable and logical conclusion by the concerned authority. 21. The co-ordinate bench of this Court also desisted on making any comment and observations on such averse reports against the private respondents, and this Court is also of the same opinion that any comments about veracity of such adverse reports at this stage would be premature and may influence such enquiry adversely against the private respondents. 22. 21. The co-ordinate bench of this Court also desisted on making any comment and observations on such averse reports against the private respondents, and this Court is also of the same opinion that any comments about veracity of such adverse reports at this stage would be premature and may influence such enquiry adversely against the private respondents. 22. Therefore, without making any such comments on such adverse report or the adverse material against the private respondents, this Court considers it appropriate to set aside the impugned order of the learned Board of Revenue Annexure-8 dated 10.8.2010 and so also the order passed by the Colonization Commissioner Annexure-1 dated 31.10.1991 and the matter is restored back to the Colonization Commissioner, Bikaner, for holding enquiry de novo allowing both the parties to lead oral as well as documentary evidence before him and then arrive at proper and cogent finding of facts as to whether the allotments of land made in favour of private respondents deserve to be cancelled under Rules 21 or 22(3) of the 1975 Rules or not. 23. Accordingly, the present writ petitions filed by the State are allowed and setting the aside the aforesaid two orders Annexure-1 dated 31.10.1991 of Colonization Commissioner and the impugned order dated 10.8.2010 (Annexure- 8) passed by the learned Board of Revenue, the matter is restored back to the Colonization Commissioner with a direction to hold and conclude the said enquiry within a period of six months from today giving due opportunity of hearing to both the parties, taking into account the existing material oral as well as documentary evidence on record, and considering all the relevant aspects of the matter and then arrive at the findings of facts and then pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. The parties may appear before the Colonization Commissioner, Bikaner in the first instance on 5.8.2013 (Monday). Parties shall bear their own costs. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned parties and the learned Board of Revenue and Colonization Commissioner, Bikaner forthwith. Schedule A 1. S.B.C.W.P. No. 7241/2011, State of Rajasthan v. Lalit Kumar & Ors . 2. S.B.C.W.P. No. 7242/2011, State of Rajasthan v. Vjay Kumar & Ors . 3. S.B.C.W.P. No. 7243/2011, State of Rajasthan v. Vinod Kumar & Ors . 4. S.B.C.W.P. No. 7244/2011, State of Rajasthan v. Santosh Kumar & Ors . 5. Schedule A 1. S.B.C.W.P. No. 7241/2011, State of Rajasthan v. Lalit Kumar & Ors . 2. S.B.C.W.P. No. 7242/2011, State of Rajasthan v. Vjay Kumar & Ors . 3. S.B.C.W.P. No. 7243/2011, State of Rajasthan v. Vinod Kumar & Ors . 4. S.B.C.W.P. No. 7244/2011, State of Rajasthan v. Santosh Kumar & Ors . 5. S.B.C.W.P. No. 7245/2011, State of Rajasthan v. Megh Raj & Ors . 6. S.B.C.W.P. No. 7246/2011, State of Rajasthan v. Mohan Lal & Ors . 7. S.B.C.W.P. No. 7248/2011, State of Rajasthan v. Megh Raj & Ors . 8. S.B.C.W.P. No. 7251/2011, State of Rajasthan v. Indra Kumar & Ors . 9. S.B.C.W.P. No. 7252/2011, State of Rajasthan v. Girdhari Lal & Ors . 10. S.B.C.W.P. No. 7253/2011, State of Rajasthan v. Sohan Lal & Ors . 11. S.B.C.W.P. No. 7254/2011, State of Rajasthan v. Dau Lal & Ors . Petition Allowed. *******