JUDGMENT 1. - By this writ petition, the petitioner Sharif S/o Mallar has challenged concurrent findings of three Revenue Courts below cancelling his allotment of 75 bighas of land in Khasra No. 394 situated in village Tamlor, Tehsil Sheo, Dist. Barmer. The said allotment of 75 bighas of land in question was given to him, when the petitioner Sharif was a minor of only 11 years of age under the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Land for Agriculture Purposes) Rules, 1970, which provides for allotment of Government land to bona fide agriculturist, who is a landless person. 2. On an application filed by the Tehsildar Sheo, Dist. Barmer on 10.6.1981, the learned Assistant Collector vide his order dated 11.4.1984 cancelled the said allotment finding that despite giving of 18 opportunities, the respondent Sharif did not even appear before the said authority and adduce any evidence is support of his claim of the said allotment being regular and valid and since he was admittedly a minor of 11 years of age at the time of allotment and had also share in the agricultural land belonging to his father, since in the name of his grand- father about 440 big has of land was already recorded in the revenue record, out of which his father had share of 88 big has of land, therefore, the respondent- Sharif (the present petitioner) could not be said to be a landless person and since the allotment under the 1970 Rules was obtained by fraud and misrepresentation of facts, therefore, the said allotment was cancelled. The first appeal filed under Section 75 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 by the petitioner Sharif also came to be dismissed by the learned Revenue Appellate Authority vide order dated 20.9.1988 while dismissing 4 other similar appeals of other persons also, one of them being Appeal No. 562/1986, Ahsan S/o Mithu Khan v. State . The first appeal filed under Section 75 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 by the petitioner Sharif also came to be dismissed by the learned Revenue Appellate Authority vide order dated 20.9.1988 while dismissing 4 other similar appeals of other persons also, one of them being Appeal No. 562/1986, Ahsan S/o Mithu Khan v. State . The second appeal filed under Section 76 of the Act also came to be dismissed by the learned Board of Revenue vide impugned order Annexure-3 dated 25.4.1989 whereby appeal filed by the present petitioner Sharif S/o Mallar and another appeal filed by Ahsan S/o Mithu Khan came to be dismissed by the learned Board of Revenue by observing as under: " 6- nksuksa vihyk.V~l vkaoVu ds le; ukckfyx Fks bl laca/k esa iVokjh gYdk us O;fDrxr :i ls ns[kdj 'kiFkiw.kZ viuk c;ku fn;k gSA rFkk vihyk.V~l dh vk;q crkbZ gS ftlds vuqlkj vkoaVu ds le; os ukckfyx FksA bl laca/k esa ;g cgqr egRoiw.kZ ckr gS fd nksuksa vihyk.V~l us vius c;kuksa esa viuh dksbZ tUe frfFk ekg rFkk o"kZ vkfn ugha crk;k gS dsoy xksyeky vius dks ckfyx gksuk gh dgk gS tks fcuk fdlh vU; lgk;d lk{; ds fo'oluh; ugha gSA bruk gh ugha] vihyk.V~l us vius ckfyx gksus ds rF; dh iqf"V esa vius Lo;a ds ekrk firk vFkok fdlh vU; fj'rsnkj dh Hkh lk{; ugha djkbZ vkSj uk gh dksbZ Ldwy lfVZfQdsV] jk'ku dkMZ vFkok oksVj fyLV vkfn dh izfrfyfi izLrqr dh xbZ gS ftlls muds rdZ dks cy feyrk gksA blfy, nksuksa v/khuLFk U;k;ky;ksa us bl fcUnq ij foLr'r foospu dj QkbfMaXl nh gSa muls eSa lger gwaA bl izdkj vihyk.V~l] vkoaVu ds le;] ukckfyx gksus ls Hkw&vkoaVu ds ik= ugha FksA pawfd vihyk.V~l dks fd, x, vkoaVu dks fujLr djus gsrq dsoy ;gh fcUnq i;kZIr gS vr% eSa fo}ku vfHkHkk"kdx.k }kjk dh xbZ cgl ds vU; fcUnq ij foospu djuk mfpr ugha le>rkA 7- fu"d"kZr% nksuksa vihy vihyk.V~l lkjghu gksus ds dkj.k fujLr dh tkrh gSa rFkk jktLo vihy vf/kdkjh tks/kiqj o vfrfjDr ftyk/kh'k ckM+esj ds iz'uxr vkns'kksa dks ;Fkkor~ j[ks tkrs gSaA gqDe [kqys U;k;ky; esa lquk;k x;kA " 3. Being aggrieved all these concurrent orders against him, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition before this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of India, which was filed on 11.10.2011. 4. Mr. Being aggrieved all these concurrent orders against him, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition before this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of India, which was filed on 11.10.2011. 4. Mr. jitendra Chopra, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even assuming for argument sake that the petitioner was a minor at the time of allotment of agricultural land in question, since as per Muslim personal law, he was not entitled to get any share in his father's property during father's life time at the time of allotment. He was rightly treated as a landless person covered under the provisions of 1970 Rules and therefore, such allotment could not be cancelled on his being either a minor or not being a landless person and therefore, the impugned orders of the three revenue Courts bellow deserve to be set aside. He also submitted that the other appellant Ahsan S/o Mithu Khan had also filed a writ petition before this Court, which Writ Petition No. 442/1990 came to be allowed on 7.7.1997. However, he submitted that Division Bench appeal filed by the State against the said order of the learned Single Judge dated 7.7.1997, namely, D.B.S.A.W. No. 912/1999, State v. Ahsan , came to be allowed vide order dated 3.3.2009 and the matter was remanded back to the learned Board of Revenue for consideration of the case afresh. He, therefore, submitted that the present writ petition also deserves to be allowed and the matter may be remanded back to the learned Board of Revenue. He relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bra Lal v. Board of Revenue, reported in AIR 1994 SC 1128 and decision of this Court in the case of Amar Singh v. State of Rajasthan, reported in WLR 1997 Raj. 342 . 5. On the other hand, Mr. Sandeep Bhandawat, learned counsel appearing for the Revenue Department opposed the present writ petition and urged that the concurrent findings of facts by the three Revenue Courts below are not required to be interfered with in the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and they being concurrent findings of facts are binding on this Court and deserve to be upheld. Mr. Mr. Bhandawat vehemently urged that in view of the admitted position that the present petitioner was a minor of I I years of age at the time of allotment made under 1970 Rules and there was no provision specifically for allotment of land in favour of minors under the 1970 Rules, such allotment, therefore, was illegal and void ab initio. He also urged that the present petitioner Sharif cannot be said to be a landless person since admittedly, there was an existing land holding of 440 bighas in favour of his grand-father, out of which 88 bighas belonged to his father. He submitted that merely because the inheritance law of Muslim personal law did not make him or a minor son immediately entitled to claim a separate share in the agricultural land till his father was alive, that does not mean that the petitioner, a minor, at that time should be deemed to be a landless person and given the benefit the allotment of Government agricultural land under 1970 Rule, since the very purpose of said allotment was to enable the landless bona fide agriculturist to earn his livelihood by making actual cultivation on such agricultural land upon the allotment under which only 'Gair Khatedari' rights were given to provide a source of livelihood to such landless person. 6. Mr. Bhandawat also urged that admittedly, since the petitioner was only a minor of 11 years of age and was dependent upon his father for his livelihood, he could not be said to be either a landless person in his own right having capacity to enter into a valid contract and therefore, the allotment was rightly cancelled after giving him due opportunity of hearing on the application of Tehsildar, Sheo, Dist. Barmer by the learned Assistant Collector which order has been upheld on the appeal and revision filed by the petitioner upto the Board of Revenue. He submitted that the cases laws relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Jitender Chopra are on different facts and are not at all applicable to the facts of the present case. Barmer by the learned Assistant Collector which order has been upheld on the appeal and revision filed by the petitioner upto the Board of Revenue. He submitted that the cases laws relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Jitender Chopra are on different facts and are not at all applicable to the facts of the present case. He also submitted that even in the writ petition of other allottee Ahsan Slo Mallar, the matter has been remanded back to the board of Revenue, but that cannot ensure to the benefit of present petitioner Sharif whose illegal allotment of 75 bighas of land was cancelled by the Revenue Courts below as the purpose of 1970 Rules was not to confer khatedari of any additional agricultural land on the already existing khatedari land holders and therefore, the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed. I have heard the learned counsels at length and perused the judgmez,ts of the Revenue Courts below and the case laws cited at the bar. 7. I have heard the learned counsels at length and perused the judgmez,ts of the Revenue Courts below and the case laws cited at the bar. 7. The definition of a landless agriculturist in Rule 2(iii-B) of the 1970 Rules is an under: "2(iii-B) "Landless Agriculturist" means a resident of Rajasthan who is either a bona fide agriculturist or an agricultural labourer, and is cultivating or is likely to cultivate land personally, and whose main source of livelihood is agriculture or any occupation which is subsidiary or subservient to agriculture, and such person does not hold any tenure land anywhere in Rajasthan, or the area of.such land which he holds including any land which has been previously allotted to him, is less than the area prescribed in Rule 12: Provided that the following categories of persons shall not be considered to be landless agriculturists, namely- (a) an employee of the Government or of a commercial or industrial establishment or concern, his wife and children dependent on him but a casual or work charged labourer shall not be treated as an employee for this purpose; (b) a person who has sold or otherwise transferred, the whole of part of the land held by, or allotted to him and has, therefore, come to hold less then the minimum area specified above; (c) a married person whose wife or husband, as the case may be, holds land, including any land which has been previously allotted to him or her, jointly or severally, is more than the area prescribed in Rule 12;" 8. Rule 3 provides for scope of said Rules of 1970, which is also reproduced hereunder for ready reference: "Rule 3. Scope of the Rules.-These rules shall govern the allotment of unoccupied Government lands for agricultural purposes in area other than those declared as a colony under clause (ii) of Section 21 of the Rajasthan Colonization Act, 1954 (Rajasthan Act 27 of 1954) and other than lands falling in the areas mentioned in the proviso to Section 15 and in Section 15-A of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (Act 3 of 1955) or in any notification issued thereunder." 9. Rule 14(4) of the said Rules which provides for cancellation of allotment obtained through fraud or misrepresentation is also reproduced hereunder: "14(4) The Collector shall have the power to cancel any allotment made by a Sub-Divisional officer or a Tehsildar under the Rules repealed by Rule 21 of the rules either suo moto or on the application of any person in case the allotment has been secured through fraud or misrepresentation or has been made against rules or in case the allottee has committed breach of any of the conditions of allotment." 10. From the scheme of the aforesaid Rules of 1970, it is clear that the purpose of these Rules is to enable the landless bona fide agriculturist or agricultural labourer to get a source of livelihood by allowing them to cultivate Government agricultural land by conferring upon them limited Bair khatedari rights and these Rules are not for providing regular tenancy rights to the agriculturists who are already landholders or otherwise have adequate source of livelihood. In view of admitted factual and legal position that the petitioner was a minor of 11 years of age at the time of allotment, though exact date of allotment is not available on record, but the same was cancelled 'on the application of the Tehsildar, Sheo, Barmer dated 10.6.1981 vide order dated 11.4.1984. The grounds for cancellation of allotment in the absence of any contrary evidence adduced by the present petitioner appear to be valid grounds in law to cancel such allotment. Neither there is any specific provision under 1970 Rules for allotment of Government land to a minor nor a minor of 11 years can be said to be independently a landless person so as to become entitled for allotment under these 1970 Rules. The dependency of a minor on his father or his grand father can be very well assumed in law. He could not be said to be desparately needing the agricultural land for his survival nor 1970 Rules are meant for adding land holdings to the family of existing land holders. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that under the Muslim personal law since the petitioner, a minor, at that time could not independently secure any separate agricultural land for himself, therefore, assuming him to be a landless person, such allotment of land should be deemed to be valid, is a. misconceived contention. 11. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that under the Muslim personal law since the petitioner, a minor, at that time could not independently secure any separate agricultural land for himself, therefore, assuming him to be a landless person, such allotment of land should be deemed to be valid, is a. misconceived contention. 11. It is true that there is no prohibition either under the law of 1970 Rules for allotment of land to a minor, but such allotment and giving the right of cultivation of Government agricultural land under Bair khatedari rights necessarily assumes the existence of a valid contract between the Government and the other party, a landless person, whereas a minor cannot be said to have any such capacity to enter into a valid contract under the Indian. Contract Act, 1871. Therefore, the two grounds on which allotment was cancelled, namely that the petitioner being minor of 11 years of age and that he could not be assumed to be a landless persons are valid grounds for cancellation of the allotment. Since there was already a big chunk of land measuring 440 big has recorded in the name of his grand-father out .of which 88 big has of land fell in the share of his father himself, the allotment in favour of present petitioner under 1970 Rules was not sustainable and therefore, the Revenue Courts below cannot be said to have erred in setting, aside that allotment by their concurrent judgments against the petitioner. The said findings of facts and law arrived at by the Revenue Courts below are binding on this Court and cannot be upset in writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India as there is no ground available to do so. 12. The order passed by a learned Single judge in this Court in the case of Ahsan Khan S/o Mithu Khan who is stated to be only 7 years of age at the time of allotment, namely, S.B.C.W.P. No. 442/1990, Ahsan Khan v. State , which was decided on 7.7.1997 was a short order and is reproduced hereunder for ready reference: "For the reasons recorded in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2005/1989 this petition is also allowed. The impugned orders at Annexures 1, 2 and 3 are hereby set aside. The cancellation proceedings initiated by Tehsildar, Shiv, Distt. Barmer are also hereby quashed. The impugned orders at Annexures 1, 2 and 3 are hereby set aside. The cancellation proceedings initiated by Tehsildar, Shiv, Distt. Barmer are also hereby quashed. Sd/- (B.J. Shethna) J." 13. The said order of learned Single judge itself was set aside by the Division Bench of this Court upon appeal filed by the State in D.B.S.A.W. No. 912/2009, State of Rajasthan v. Ansan , decided on 3.3.2009 in the following terms: "12. As noticed above, the question as to whether the appellant was entitled for allotment as a "landless person" has not been considered by the Board of Revenue inasmuch as. the Board found that the allotment made in favour of the appellant was liable to be cancelled solely on the ground that at the time of allotment the appellant was minor. The learned Single judge has also not examined this aspect of the matter. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the matter deserves to be remanded to the Board of Revenue for adjudication of the remaining issues raised on behalf of the appellant. 13. In the result, the special appeal succeeds, it is hereby allowed. The order under appeal is set aside. The writ petition is allowed. The order dated 25.4.1989 passed by the Board of Revenue impugned in the writ petition is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Board of Revenue for consideration and decision afresh as indicated above. The parties shall appear before the Board of Revenue on 6.4.2009 which shall decide the matter expeditiously, preferable within a period of six months thereafter. No order as to costs. sd/- Sd/-" (Sangeet Lodha) J. (A.M. Kapadia) J.Therefore, since the matter of Ahsan S/o Mithu Khan has been remanded back to the learned Board of Revenue, the same is of little help to the present petitioner Sharif before this Court in the present writ petition. 14. The Supreme Court judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Brilal v. Board of Revenue (supra) is totally distinguishable from the facts of the present case. 14. The Supreme Court judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Brilal v. Board of Revenue (supra) is totally distinguishable from the facts of the present case. The case of ,appellant Brijlal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was that Brijlal was allotted the land in dispute in the year 1974 on temporary basis and in the year 1979, he applied for the permanent allotment of the said land, but the said application was rejected on the ground that from the photo affixed on the application from, it appeared that lie was a minor. The appeal filed by him was also dismissed by the Board of Revenue. The appellant produced on record the date of birth certificate from the Head Master, Government Primary School, according to which the date of birth was 18.3.1952 and he also produced a certificate of doctor showing that on the date of temporary allotment of land, he had attained majority. it was also not disputed before the Court that the appellant was a landless person under the Rules. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Para 4 also observed that there was not even an iota of evidence on record to show that the appellant was minor on the date of temporary allotment. In these facts, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that since appellant Brij Lal was in cultivating possession of land since 1974, therefore, he was not liable to be dispossessed.But the facts of that case are entirely different from the present case, where the petitioner was admittedly a minor of 11 years of age only at the time of allotment and he was also not a landless person. The said judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court is of no help to present petitioner. 15. Following the said Supreme Court decision in the case of Briilal (supra), the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Amar Singh (supra) even allowed the regularization of landless person for permanent allotment and held that it could not have been rejected on the ground that the appellant-petitioner was a minor. Para 3 of the Division Bench order of this Court is reproduced below for ready reference: "3. Para 3 of the Division Bench order of this Court is reproduced below for ready reference: "3. The controversy involved in the appeal stands concluded by the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in Brij Lal v. Board of Revenue & Ors., AIR 1994 SC 1128 , wherein it has been held that rejection of the permanent allotment on the ground that he was minor on the date of temporary allotment, was not proper. It was held by the Supreme Court, in Para No. 3 of the judgment that: "The Board of Revenue of Rajasthan had remanded the case for consideration afresh in accordance with the Rules. It is not disputed that the appellant is a "landless person" under the Rules. it is further not disputed that the appellant was "temporary cultivation lease-holder" and as such he was eligible and entitled to permanent allotment of the land on priority basis under the Rules. On the date when the appellant applied for permanent allotment he was holding the temporary allotment. If the appellant had procured temporary allotment by giving false declaration regarding age then proceedings for cancelling temporary allotment should have been undertaken. The temporary lease of the appellant was never cancelled. The appellant being "temporary cultivation lease-holder", permanent allotment could not be denied to him under the Rules. We are, therefore, of the view that the Authorities under the Rules and the High Court fell into patent error in rejecting the claim of the appellant for permanent allotment." 4. In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case, we are of the opinion that the appeal filed by the appellant deserves to be allowed as the request for permanent allotment could not have been rejected on the ground that the appellant-petitioner was minor on the date when the temporary lease of the land was granted in his favour. 5. in the result, the appeal filed by the appellant-petitioner is allowed. The judgment dated 10.7.1985 passed by the learned Single judge as well as the judgment/order passed by the Revenue Authorities are quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to make permanent allotment of the land in dispute in favour of the appellant-petitioner in accordance with law." 16. 5. in the result, the appeal filed by the appellant-petitioner is allowed. The judgment dated 10.7.1985 passed by the learned Single judge as well as the judgment/order passed by the Revenue Authorities are quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to make permanent allotment of the land in dispute in favour of the appellant-petitioner in accordance with law." 16. with great respect, the said judgment is also distinguishable as the appellant being a landless person was not disputed before the learned Division Bench and the Court proceeded on the basis of aforesaid Supreme Court decision in the case of Bra Lal (supra), which has been found to be distinguishable from the facts of the present case. Here the present petitioner Sharif is not seeking any permanent allotment, but is challenging his cancellation of illegal allotment. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bra Lal (supra) has never held that a minor as such is entitled to allotment under 1970 Rules and in view of undisputed fact that the appellant was a landless person and was also found to be major person at the time of allotment of land in question, the Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld such allotment. On the other hand, from the highlighted portion of aforesaid Para 3 from Supreme Court decision in Brij lal case (supra), it is clear that temporary allotment procured by false declaration could be cancelled as has been done in the present case with reference to Rule 14(4) of 1970 Rules. Therefore, the ratio of Supreme Court decision cannot be taken to be that allotment in favour of a minor person, even though he is not a landless person at the time of allotment, would be valid of such allotment cannot be cancelled upon the same being found to have been obtained even by fraud or misrepresentation of fact about the age of the applicant as well as fact of his being landless person or not. Therefore, the said Division Bench judgment of this Court is also distinguishable and cannot be applied in the present case. 17. Therefore, the said Division Bench judgment of this Court is also distinguishable and cannot be applied in the present case. 17. Consequently, this Court is of the opinion that the Revenue Authorities and Courts below have rightly cancelled the allotment of the petitioner who was admittedly a minor of 11 years of age only and being dependent upon his father who was a recorded khatedar of agricultural land in question to the extent of 88 big has and his grand-father being khatedar of 440 big has of land and thus treating the petitioner as not a landless person, the Revenue Courts below were justified in cancelling the allotment made in favour of the petitioner under 1970 Rules which was obtained on a misrepresentation as to his age and status of being a landless person. The impugned orders, therefore, cannot be assailed validly in the present writ petition. 18. The present writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned and Revenue Courts below forthwithPetition Dismissed. *******