JUDGMENT : The instant special appeal has been filed by the State of Rajasthan under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance Act, 1949 against the order dated 29th of November 2005 passed by learned Single Judge in SBCWP No. 4172/1996 (Gani Mohd. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.), whereby the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent/writ petitioner Gani Mohd. and quashed the order passed by the Addl. Collector, Bhilwara dated 14.01.1994 and the order passed by learned Board of Revenue dated 13.09.1994. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that an agricultural land comprising of Khasra No. 3768 measuring 3 Bigha and 16 Biswa and land of Khasra No. 3769 measuring 2 Bigha and 14 Biswa, was allotted to the writ-petitioner in Village Kundiakala, Tehsil Banera under Section 21 of the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1973') on 14.01.1983. According to writ-petitioner, the possession of the land was also handed over to him. Against the said allotment made in favour of respondent-Gani Mohd., a complaint came to be filed, upon which the Tehsildar filed an application before the Addl. Collector, Bhilwara for cancellation of allotment made in favour of writ-petitioner/respondent. 3. The said application (Application No. 285/34) was registered and show cause notice was issued to the writ-petitioner/respondent as to why allotment may not be cancelled. The Addl. Collector, Bhilwara while considering the fact that the writ-petitioner/respondent was regularly working on the post of Manager in Gram Sewa Sahakari Samiti, Baladrakha, Village Kundiakala, and he was not an agriculturist by profession. Further, considered the fact of having land of measuring 11 Bigha and 6 Biswa, therefore, the Addl. Collector, Bhilwara, cancelled the allotment dated 14.01.1983 of land made in favour of respondent Gani Mohd. vide order impugned dated 14.01.1994. 4. Against the said order, respondent/writ-petitioner, Gani Mohd. preferred an appeal before the Board of Revenue under Section 23 (2A) of the Act of 1973, however, the learned Board of Revenue after considering the important aspect of the matter that the day on which allotment was made, the respondent/writ-petitioner was not agriculturist being an employee of a cooperative society as Manager and so also he was already having land in his name, therefore, the learned Board of Revenue dismissed the appeal filed by respondent Gani Mohd. vide its order dated 13.09.1994. 5. Both the aforesaid orders were assailed by the writ-petitioner/respondent Gani Mohd. by filing writ petition before learned Single Judge being SBCWP No. 4172/1996, in which the learned Single Judge set aside the order dated 14.01.1994 passed by the Addl. Collector and the order of the Board of Revenue dated 13.09.1994 and restored the allotment made in favour of respondent/writ-petitioner. In this special appeal, the said order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 29.11.2005 is under challenge. 6. In the instant special appeal, notices were issued upon application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act as the appeal was barred by 468 days, however, inspite of service of notices, nobody put in appearance on behalf of respondent/writ-petitioner. Ultimately, the application filed u/s 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay was allowed by this Court on 28.11.208 and an interim order to maintain status quo pertaining to the land in question was also passed. 7. After admission again notices were issued, but inspite of service as is evident from the office report that notices are served, nobody put in appearance on behalf of respondent/writ-petitioner. On 25.05.2011 the appeal was listed in the Court and a coordinate bench of this Court confirmed the interim order dated 28.11.2008 for maintaining the status quo pertaining to the land in question. It was also observed by the coordinate bench that inspite of service, no one is appearing on behalf of respondent. 8. Learned Government Counsel vehemently argued that the allotment committee constituted under the Act of 1973 and Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Rules, 1973 (Rules of 1973), 6 Bigha and 11 Biswa of land was allotted in favour of writ-petitioner/respondent in accordance with Rule 17 of the Rules of 1973 but the said allotment was cancelled by the Addl. Collector, Bhilwara by order dated 14.01.1994 while exercising powers under sub-Rule (4) of Rule 14 of the Rules of 1973. The said order was perfectly in consonance with law, therefore, the Board of Revenue upheld the same while dismissing the appeal filed by the respondent. 9. Learned Govt. Counsel further argued that the writ-petitioner/respondent was not bonafide agriculturist as he was in employment of a cooperative society as Manager, therefore, the Addl. Collector while considering the aforesaid fact cancelled the allotment order, in which there is no illegality. 9. Learned Govt. Counsel further argued that the writ-petitioner/respondent was not bonafide agriculturist as he was in employment of a cooperative society as Manager, therefore, the Addl. Collector while considering the aforesaid fact cancelled the allotment order, in which there is no illegality. It is also argued that no objection or plea was taken by the respondent that he was not working as Manager in the cooperative society, therefore, it is obvious that the respondent was not entitled to be considered a bona fide agriculturist for the purpose of allotment of land, but erroneously land was allotted in contravention of rules. The learned Board of Revenue while considering the same also dismissed the appeal filed by the respondent/writ-petitioner, however, the learned Single Judge without considering this important aspect of the matter set aside the orders in very casual manner that too without taking into consideration the fact that respondent-Gani Mohd was working as Manager on the date of allotment of land. 10. We have perused sub-Rule (3) of Rule 17 of the Rules of 1973 and also considered the most important fact that on the date of allotment, respondent Gani Mohd. was working as Manager in Gram Sewa Sahakari Samiti, Baladrakha, and undisputedly he was having land measuring 11 Bigha in his name, therefore, the allotment was cancelled by the Addl. Collector, Bhilwara but the learned Singe Judge did not consider the said aspect of the matter upon which the cancellation was made. 11. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant-State, and perusal the order passed by learned Single Judge, we are of the opinion that as per Rules allotment can be made to the bonafide agriculturist and landless person, but the writ-petitioner/respondent does not dispute the fact that he was working as Manger in Gram Sewa Sahakari Samiti, Baladrakha, therefore, we are of the opinion that the Addl. Collector, Bhilwara has not committed any error in cancelling the allotment made in favour of respondent Gani Mohd. because as per Rules, allotment of land can be made to bonafide agriculturist and landless person. According to documentary evidence available on record, it cannot be said that the respondent/writ-petitioner was entitled for any allotment on the date of allotment. In our opinion, the judgment passed by learned Single Judge runs contrary to the facts of the case, therefore, the same is not sustainable in law. 12. According to documentary evidence available on record, it cannot be said that the respondent/writ-petitioner was entitled for any allotment on the date of allotment. In our opinion, the judgment passed by learned Single Judge runs contrary to the facts of the case, therefore, the same is not sustainable in law. 12. Consequently, the instant special appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan is hereby allowed. The judgment impugned dated 29.11.2005 passed by learned Single Judge is hereby set aside and the orders passed by the Addl. Collector, Bhilwara and the Board of Revenue dated 14.01.1994 and 13.09.1994 respectively are restored.