JUDGMENT Mohammad Rafiq, J. - These appeals have been filed with delay of 46, 43, 43 and 37 days respectively, and the appellants have filed applications under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. For stated reasons, the applications are allowed. The delay in filing the appeals is condoned. 2. Since the question involved in all these four appeals is common, therefore, they were heard and are being decided by this common judgment. 3. Three special appeals, being D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) Nos.1056/2018, 1059/2018 and 1062/2018, arise out of judgment/order dated 07.05.2018 passed by learned Single Judge in writ petitions being S.B. Civil Writ Petitions No.4194/2018, 4225/2018 and 4247/2018 respectively, whereby learned Single Judge dismissed all the three writ petitions filed by the State of Rajasthan challenging common order of the Board of Revenue whereby the appeals preferred by the private respondents against the order of the Revenue Appellate Authority were allowed setting aside the order dated 16.06.2008 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority and upholding the allotment of land to the concerned persons under the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Land for Agriculture Purpose) Rules, 1970. 4. The special appeal being D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.1066/2018 arises out of judgment dated 18.05.2018 passed by learned Single Judge whereby the writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4240/2018 has been dismissed in terms of the order dated 07.05.2018 passed in those three writ petitions. 5. The appellants herein were the respondents before the Board of Revenue and they are residents of village Sargaon, Tehsil Kishangarh, District Ajmer. They claim that it was on their complaint that the Tehsildar, Kishangarh, District Ajmer, moved the application under Rule 14 (4) of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Land for Agriculture Purpose) Rules, 1970 (for short, 'the Rules of 1970') before the Additional Collector, Ajmer, for cancellation of the allotment of land in favour of the allotteesrespondents and therefore they have right to assail the judgments of the learned Single Judge. 6. 6. Facts, in brief, of the case are that the Allotment Advisory Committee constituted under the Rules of 1970 in its Camp held on 14.07.1997 at village Sargaon made allotment of land measuring 5 bigha each to landless persons, namely, Rampal S/o Mangu, Sugna S/o Mangu, Dhanna Lal S/o Sujya, Shankar Lal S/o Moola and Sheoraj S/o Vijendra, all residents of village Sargaon, Tehsil Kishangarh, out of the land bearing Khasra no.517 of that village, and 'gair khatedari' rights were conferred on the allotteesrespondents. It is not in dispute that the land of the aforesaid khasra number was recorded as 'sawai chak' and not a pasture land. The Tehsildar, Kishangarh, filed an application under Rule 14(4) of the Rules of 1970, nine years after the allotment, for cancellation thereof contending that the allotments were made to the aforesaid persons contrary to the Rules of 1970. The Additional Collector, Ajmer, vide detailed order dated 05.03.2007 dismissed the application, however, the Revenue Appellate Authority in the appeal filed by the State set aside the allotment. The allottees-respondents then filed appeals before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue, vide judgment dated 22.10.2014, allowed their appeals and restored the allotment. It is against that common judgment of the Board of Revenue that the writ petitions were filed by the State of Rajasthan, which were dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide impugned judgment/order. 7. Mr. Jai Kishan Yogi, learned counsel for the appellants, has submitted that the Board of Revenue did not examine the factual position that as per the report of Patwari the land was being used as pasture land and was not in possession of the allotteesrespondents. It was further alleged that the allottees-respondents were not undertaking agricultural activities on such land. The allottees-respondents concealed the material fact that they were not landless persons and that the allotment of land, which was being actually used for grazing the cattle of the village, could not be made to them. In the revenue record, the disputed land was shown as 'sawai chak' and was being used for grazing the cattle of the village. As per the census of the cattle in the Gram Panchayat, the availability of pasture land was not adequate in the village. Learned Single Judge has not considered this vital aspect of the matter. In the revenue record, the disputed land was shown as 'sawai chak' and was being used for grazing the cattle of the village. As per the census of the cattle in the Gram Panchayat, the availability of pasture land was not adequate in the village. Learned Single Judge has not considered this vital aspect of the matter. The Board of Revenue failed to appreciate that the allottees held the land after acquiring khatedari rights. The Board of Revenue allowed the appeals filed by the allottees-respondents only on the ground that the application for cancellation of allotment was filed belatedly nine years after the allotment. 8. These appeals have been filed by the private persons, who claim to be the residents of village Sargaon. According to them, the land was being used for grazing the cattle and that the land, being a pasture land, could not have been allotted to the allotteesrespondents. 9. Learned Single Judge, while taking note of Rule 14 of the Rules of 1970, has observed that immediately on allotment of land 'gair khatedari' rights shall be conferred on the allottees and on expiry of ten years the 'khatedari' rights would be conferred on them. The application for cancellation of the land can be made on two counts firstly if the allottee has not cultivated 50% of the land in the first year of allotment and remaining in the second year but such cancellation can be made only within a period of three years as provided under Rule 14(1) of the Rules of 1970 and secondly the allotment can be cancelled if the Collector is satisfied that the allotment has been secured on the strength of fraud or misrepresentation. Learned Single Judge on perusal of the order of the Additional Collector, Ajmer, as also the Board of Revenue, took a view that the allotment of the land to anyone of the allottees on allegation of non-cultivation of the land could not have been cancelled after expiry of three years. The application in the present case was filed nine years after the allotment. 10. We have, to satisfy ourselves about the correctness of the view taken by the learned Single Judge, looked into the order passed by the Additional Collector as also the order of the Revenue Appellate Authority and the Board of Revenue. The application in the present case was filed nine years after the allotment. 10. We have, to satisfy ourselves about the correctness of the view taken by the learned Single Judge, looked into the order passed by the Additional Collector as also the order of the Revenue Appellate Authority and the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue has concurred with the view taken by the Additional Collector and reversed that of the Revenue Appellate Authority. The Board has noted that the allotment was made to the allotteesrespondents on recommendation of the Land Allotment Advisory Committee in the public camp, which was organized in village Sargaon on 14.07.1977. Each of the contesting respondents was allotted five bighas of land. The possession of the land was handed over to them and thereafter mutation was also attested in their favour. Their names were recorded in the revenue records. It was observed by the Board of Revenue that if at all the land was being used for grazing the cattle, anyone present in the public camp would have objected to the same then and there. There was no justification for the Tehsildar to apply for cancellation of the allotment nine years thereafter. The Board of Revenue was not persuaded to accept the plea of the Tehsildar that the land was being used for grazing the cattle. No material was placed by the Tehsildar or the appellants before the Additional Collector or for that matter the Revenue Appellate Authority or the Board of Revenue to substantiate the plea that the allottees-respondents were not landless persons. The Board of Revenue has taken note of the fact that the Patwari submitted the report as to eligibility of the allottees for allotment and thereafter the Tehsildar also made an enquiry and recommended for allotment in their favour. No mention was made with regard to census of cattle and less availability of the pasture land. Even otherwise, the land in dispute was not recorded as pasture land but was a 'sawai chak' land. The Board of Revenue therefore held that there was no justification for applying for cancellation of allotment made in favour of the poor and landless persons nine years after such allotment was made. There was no question for cancellation of allotment when the allotment was made unanimously. Recommendation was also made by the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat and he signed such recommendation. 11. There was no question for cancellation of allotment when the allotment was made unanimously. Recommendation was also made by the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat and he signed such recommendation. 11. We are inclined to agree with the view taken by the Board of Revenue. We are also inclined to endorse the view taken by the learned Single Judge in upholding the judgment of the Board of Revenue as the respondent State has neither been able to substantiate that within permissible period of three years that the land was not cultivated by anyone of the allottees nor it has been proved that they secured the allotment on the basis of fraud or misrepresentation. This has not been pleaded and proved as a question of fact that the respondents-allottees were not landless persons. 12. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge so as to warrant any interference. 13. The appeals fail and are accordingly dismissed. This also disposes of stay applications and the applications filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.