ORDER : Sandeep Mehta, J. Heard. By way of this writ petition, the petitioners being the legal heirs of Saika Ram @ Sukh Ram have approached this Court for assailing the order (Annexure-8) dated 17.06.1998 passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer, order (Annexure-7) dated 05.09.1988 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Jodhpur and the order (Annexure-3) dated 29.01.1980 passed by the Collector, Nagaur. 2. Facts in brief are that a piece of land located in Khasra No.160, Village Padu Khurd measuring 264 square yards was recommended to be allotted to one Alfu on the basis of his long standing possession, vide order dated 10.06.1972 passed by the Nayab Tehsildar, Merta, District Nagaur. The Tehsildar, Merta approved the said recommendation by order (Annexure-2) dated 05.11.1974. Alfu sold the land in question to Sukh Ram by a registered sale deed. The respondents Jodha Ram and Mangu Ram filed an appeal against the said allotment order before the learned District Collector, Nagaur which came to be registered as Revenue Appeal No.50/1978. In the proceedings before the District Magistrate, an application was moved to implead Sukha Ram as a party respondent to the proceedings but the same was dismissed. The District Collector, Nagaur, proceeded to hold that 4 biswas land from khasra No.160 measuring 15 biswas which was entered in the revenue record as Gair Mumkin Chhatriya had been illegally allotted to Alfu. As per the District Magistrate, such land was not fit to be allotted. Thus, the allotment made to Alfu was cancelled and set aside, vide order dated 29.01.1980. Sukh Ram challenged the order dated 29.01.1980 passed by the District Magistrate, Nagaur by filing an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Jodhpur which came to be rejected by order dated 05.09.1988. Before the Revenue Appellate Authority, it was attempted to be demonstrated that the land was originally entered as Gochar land in the revenue record. Thereafter, it was converted to Aabadi land and as such, the allotment of land made in favour of Alfu was perfectly legal and the District Collector had no jurisdiction to cancel the same. It was also argued that the Chhatris were constructed on a different part of Khasra No.160 whereas the allotment made in favour of Alfu was of the particular part of Khasra No.160 which later on stood converted as Aabadi land. It was also argued that the Chhatris were constructed on a different part of Khasra No.160 whereas the allotment made in favour of Alfu was of the particular part of Khasra No.160 which later on stood converted as Aabadi land. However, the RAA, proceeded to accept the report of Patwari dated 29.04.1974 wherein, it was mentioned that the entire land of Khasra No.160 was recorded as Gair Mumkin Chhatriya and upheld the order passed by the District Magistrate and rejected the appeal preferred by Sukh Ram. Sukh Ram passed away and thus, the petitioners herein being his legal representatives challenged the orders dated 29.01.1980 and 05.09.1988 by filing a revision before the Board of Revenue, Ajmer which came to be rejected by order dated 17.06.1998. Being aggrieved by these orders, the petitioners have approached this Court by way of the instant writ petition. 3. Shri Beniwal, learned counsel representing the petitioners urged that the allotment was legally made to Alfu the petitioners' predecessors in title on the basis of a circular dated 03.07.1971 issued by the Government of Rajasthan. There was no illegality in the action of the Nayab Tehsildar, Merta in recommending allotment of the Bada to Alfu. Such recommendation was duly accepted and regularised by the Tehsildar Metra. The courts below have totally ignored the above mentioned circular of the State Government while cancelling the allotment of land made in favour of Alfu. He further points out that the Gram Panchayat granted permission to the petitioners to raise construction on the disputed plot and thereafter, they raised construction of Pakka house on the land in question and are living thereupon for last more than 40 years. As such, it would amount to a travesty of justice if the petitioners are ousted from their residential premises at this belated stage. He contends that Chhatris are located across the road which passes through the disputed land and as such, it was wrongly held that the Alfu encroached on the land earmarked for Chhatriya. He further points out that in the year 1976, the State Government declared the part of Khasra No.160 which was allotted to Alfu and later on sold to the petitioners as Aabadi land and as such, now there can be no justification to uphold the orders passed by the Subordinate Courts whereby the allotment made in favour of Alfu was cancelled. 4. 4. Per contra, Shri O.P. Boob, learned Government Counsel and Shri Sudhir Sharma, learned counsel for the private respondents vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the petitioners' counsel. They urged that the entire land of Khasra No.160 was recorded as Gair Mumkin Chhatriya in the revenue record and as such, the same could not have been alotted at all. Shri O.P. Boob drew the Court's attention to Section 16 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1965 and urged that for the kinds of land described in the said provision, Khatedari rights cannot accrue. Thus, he urged that the allotment made to Shri Alfu being in gross contravention of the mandatory provision was rightly cancelled. 5. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 6. Undisputed fact which emerges from the record is that the land admeasuring 264 sq. yards which was allotted to Alfu was on the west side of Khasra No.160. As per the revenue map shown by Shri Boob, a road passes through Khasra No.160 separating the portions where Chhatriya are built and the one allotted to Alfu. The State Government, vide notification dated 03.07.1971, gave permission to the concerned authorities for regularisation of government lands including pasture and Gair Mumkin lands where encroachment was made and construction had been raised by farmers or other villagers on such lands provided that the size of the encroachment was less than 500 sq. yards. Undisputedly, the chunk of land on which Alfu had encroached and which was finally allotted to him measured only 264 sq. yards and thus in light of the notification dated 03.07.1971, allotment thereof was permissible. The courts below, whilst considering the entire controversy, have totally ignored the above circular issued by the Government of Rajasthan. The petitioners have raised construction of a residential house on the land in question after taking due permission from the Gram Panchayat and are living thereupon for the last more than 40 years. As such, it would be nothing short of travesty of justice if cancellation of allotment of land made to the petitioners' predecessor in title is allowed to stand at this belated stage. As such, it would be nothing short of travesty of justice if cancellation of allotment of land made to the petitioners' predecessor in title is allowed to stand at this belated stage. That apart, the Assistant Collector, whilst deciding the appeal preferred by Jodha Ram and Mangu Ram against the allotment made to Alfu, rejected the application filed to implead Sukh Ram as party respondent to the proceedings and thus, evidently the impugned order dated 29.01.1980 was passed in gross contravention of the principles of natural justice. 7. As an upshot of the above discussion, there is no hesitation on coming to a conclusion that the impugned orders passed by the courts below are grossly illegal, perverse and suffer from error apparent on the face of record and cannot be sustained. 8. Resultantly, the writ petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The impugned orders (Annexure-8) dated 17.06.1998 passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer, (Annexure-7) dated 05.09.1988 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Jodhpur and (Annexure-3) dated 29.01.1980 passed by the Collector, Nagaur are hereby quashed and set aside. No order as to cost.