JUDGMENT 1. - Petitioners have filed this writ petition against order/judgment of the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer, dated 10.01.1995 by which a reference made to it by the District Collector, Bharatpur, has been accepted. The District Collector, Bharatpur, vide order dated 24.05.1994, under Section 9 read with Section 82 of the Land Revenue Act, 1956, made aforesaid reference to learned Board of Revenue at the instance of Tehsildar, Bharatpur, as also the general public of Anaha Gate, Bharatpur, inter-alia on the premise that khatedari rights conferred upon petitioner Bhoori Singh in the land of Khasra No.335 measuring one bigha and eight biswa situated at Bharatpur, by setting aside mutation attested in favour of other petitioners Rambharosi Lal and others on the basis of sale-deed executed in their favour by aforesaid Bhoori Singh. 2. Contention of learned counsel for petitioner is that the petitioners were allotted the land in dispute in August, 1958 and mutation was attested in their favour on 28.04.1962. One Charanlal S/o Inder Narain filed a false suit against petitioner and secured a decree of specific performance and, in compliance whereof, mutation was attested in favour of Charanlal. Petitioner no.1 thereupon transferred the land to petitioners no.2 and 7, on the basis of which another mutation dated 09.03.1971 was attested in their favour. The suit filed by Charanlal was dismissed and thereafter his appeal was dismissed by this court and also by the Supreme Court. It was thereafter that an application under Rule 14(4) of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Land for Agricultural Purposes) Rules, 1957 (for short, 'the Rules of 1957') was filed by the State Government before the District Collector seeking a reference to be made to the Board of Revenue. Initially reference was declined by the District Collector by order dated 13.10.1992 but subsequently the District Collector by subsequent order dated 24.05.1994 made the reference. The Board of Revenue accepted the reference mechanically. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the allotment of the disputed land was made in favour of the petitioner on his application dated 19.08.1958 on proposal of one Desh Raj, member of the allotment committee, which the Tehsildar has accepted. Since two members could form of the Advisory Committee and both of them were member of the Advisory Committee therefore formation was complete. Since two members could form of the Advisory Committee and both of them were member of the Advisory Committee therefore formation was complete. Petitioner continuously remained in possession of the disputed land since then and was recorded khatedar tenant as per Section 19 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. Name of the petitioner was recorded in jamabandi of Samvat Years 2017-2021, 2021-2024 and 2026-2029. The application for making reference was made about 30 years thereafter alleging that the petitioner Bhoori Singh was not eligible for allotment, being the Government servant as post master in the Central Government. Learned Board of Revenue has mechanically allowed the reference. It is contended that petitioner Bhoori Singh has been continuously in possession of the land since 2015 and has been making payment of the land revenue. He acquired khatedari rights by virtue of Section 15 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, which has been completely ignored by learned court below. It is argued that initially when the District Collector has declined to make interference, another application for making reference could not have been entertained and the District Collector was bound by his earlier order. The reference was made 34 years after the date of allotment. Therefore, reference could not have been accepted at the belated stage. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the writ petition and submitted that learned Board of Revenue was perfectly justified in allowing the reference. Allotment of land was made to the petitioner temporarily for one year for cultivation and on the basis of which he fraudulently secured the khatedari right whereas no such khatedari rights could be conferred upon him. It is contended that the petitioner Bhoori Singh was a postmaster in the postal department in the Central Government and therefore he could not be treated as landless person under the Rules of 1957. Petitioner illegally got entries in the record of rights entered in his favour and subsequently transferred the said land to other petitioners. Even if the reference application of the general public was made, the Tehsildar nevertheless was eligible for making reference. The learned Board of Revenue was perfectly justified in accepting the application. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that the limitation would not apply in a case where allotment of the khatedari rights have been procured on the strength of fraud, misrepresentation and concealment. The learned Board of Revenue was perfectly justified in accepting the application. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that the limitation would not apply in a case where allotment of the khatedari rights have been procured on the strength of fraud, misrepresentation and concealment. In the present case, allotment was made temporarily for a period of one year. The delay would not be an impediment for concealment of khatedari rights in view of the judgment of this Court in Sohan Kanwar v. Board of Revenue and Others - 2002 (1) WLC (Raj.) 415. 6. I have been given my thoughtful consideration to rival submissions and perused the material on record. 7. Admittedly, in the present case, the allotment was made to the petitioner temporarily for a period of one year for the purpose of cultivation. Petitioner Bhoori Singh could not have acquired khatedari rights on a land of this nature, no allotment was made to him on the recommendation of the Advisory Committee, as per the provisions contained in the Rules of 1957. Moreover, he could not be considered as a landless person being a Government servant. Landless person has been defined in Rule 2(iii) of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Land for Agricultural Purposes) Rules, 1957:- "Landless persons" shall mean a bona-fide agriculturist by profession who cultivates or can reasonably be expected to cultivate the land personally but who does not hold any land either in his own name or in the name of any member of his joint family; or who holds an area which is less than the minimum area prescribed for purpose of Section 53 of the Tenancy Act." 8. A Division Bench of this Court in Surta Ram v. The Board Of Revenue And Ors. 1982 WLN UC 22 , while considering in somewhat similar case, has held that a Government servant cannot be treated to be a landless person. The Division Bench of this court in Sohan Kanwar, supra, held that allotment obtained by misrepresentation would not be valid and and even after lapse of time confers no right on allottee who had perpetrated a fraud and cancellation of allotment in that case was upheld. Aforesaid judgment was reiterated by another Division Bench of this court in Mangla Son of Hema v. State of Rajasthan and Others - 2007 (1) WLC (Raj.) 234. Aforesaid judgment was reiterated by another Division Bench of this court in Mangla Son of Hema v. State of Rajasthan and Others - 2007 (1) WLC (Raj.) 234. In this case the allotment was canceled on the ground that allottee was not a landless person. Relying on the judgment of this court in Sohan Kanwar, supra, and distinguishing another Division Bench judgment in Pat Ram and Others v. State of Rajasthan and Others - 1995 (2) R.B.J. 781 , this court held that whenever allotment is secured on the strength of fraud or misrepresentation, the delay in making the reference would be immaterial. In the present case, allotment was made for a period of one year only and therefore khatedari rights could not have been conferred upon the petitioner. Petitioner secured khatedari rights bypassing the procedure under the Rules of 1957. Moreover, petitioner was not a landless person. For all these reasons, the impugned judgment passed by the Board of Revenue accepting the respondents therefore cannot be faulted. No interference is called for. 9. Writ petition is therefore dismissed. Consequent upon dismissal of writ petition, stay application, filed therewith, does not survive and same is also dismissed.Petition Dismissed. *******