ORDER : PRATAP KRISHNA LOHRA, J. 1. Petitioners, the legal heirs of Sheru @ Sheru Singh, being his wife, sons and daughters, have filed this writ petition seeking quashment of order dated 5th of March, 2012 (Annex. 8) passed by Board of Revenue, and order dated 6th of February, 2012 (Annex. 6) passed by Tehsildar (Revenue), Anupgarh. 2. The facts, apposite for the purpose of this writ petition, are that Sheru @ Sheru Singh was allotted 25 bighas of agricultural land as Pong Dam Oustee in Square No. 1/48 of Chak 18-H, Anupgarh, District Sri Ganganagar, under the Rajasthan Colonisation (Allotment & Sale of Government Land to Pong Dam Oustees and their Transfers in the Indira Gandhi Canal Colony) Rules, 1972 (for short, ‘Rules of 1972’). In terms of allotment of land, the original allottee, Sheru @ Sheru Singh, was asked to deposit requisite charges in installments, as prescribed by Government under Rule 6(1) of the Rules of 1972. However, the requisite amount/installments were not deposited as per the terms of allotment order and that entailed cancellation of allotment vide order dated 16th of November, 1976 (Annex. 1) passed by Deputy Colonization Commissioner. 3. It is pleaded in the writ petition that Sheru @ Sheru Singh remained unaware about cancellation of allotment, therefore, during his lifetime he could not lay challenge to the said order. Be that as it may, after his death, petitioners made endeavour to question the cancellation of allotment by preferring appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Sri Ganganagar in the year 1998. The said appeal was registered as Appeal No. 425/98. As the appeal was filed belatedly, the petitioners made endeavour for seeking condonation of delay by filing application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Sri Ganganagar, by its order dated 6th of March, 1999 (Annex. 2) set aside the order of cancellation of allotment and directed the petitioners to deposit due installments within three months along with interest accrued thereon. 4. The respondent-State of Rajasthan, being aggrieved by order Annex. 2, preferred a revision petition before learned Board of Revenue, Ajmer and the said revision petition was finally decided vide order dated 2nd of April, 2004 (Annex. 3) rejecting appeal of the State. It so happened that in compliance of order Annex. 4. The respondent-State of Rajasthan, being aggrieved by order Annex. 2, preferred a revision petition before learned Board of Revenue, Ajmer and the said revision petition was finally decided vide order dated 2nd of April, 2004 (Annex. 3) rejecting appeal of the State. It so happened that in compliance of order Annex. 2, no specific order was passed by Tehsildar, Anupgarh restoring allotment of land in favour of petitioners, nor they were called upon to deposit the installments along with interest within three months from the date of order. In these circumstances, sans any order of restoration of allotment and notice from Tehsildar concerned, requisite installments could not be deposited by the petitioners. 5. After waiting for almost 8 years from the date of rejection of revision petition of the State, petitioners filed an application on 3rd of January, 2012 before Tehsildar (Revenue), Anupgarh for restoring allotment of the land in question in their favour so as to enable them to deposit due installments along with interest accrued thereon. The Tehsildar, after examining the application, sought directions from Sub Divisional Officer, Anupgarh and the Sub Divisional Officer conveyed the Tehsildar that three months’ time has already elapsed and therefore the petitioners cannot be permitted to deposit requisite amount with interest. In adherence of the instructions of the Sub Divisional officer, the Tehsildar rejected petitioners’ application vide order dated 6th of February, 2012 (Annex. 6). 6. Being aggrieved by order Annex. 6, petitioners preferred appeal before learned Board of Revenue under Section 221 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 read with Section 9 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956. The efforts made by the petitioners proved abortive and the learned Board of Revenue rejected their appeal vide its order dated 5th of March, 2012 (Annex. 8). It is in that background, petitioners have approached this Court by invoking jurisdiction under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution. 7. For assailing the impugned order, many grounds are set out in the petition besides urging that petitioners are prepared to pay the original amount determined by the Tehsildar (Revenue) along with interest accrued thereon. It is also pleaded that petitioners are agrarians and unaware of procedural technicalities, therefore, the allotment, which was made in favour of their ascendant Sheru @ Sheru Singh as Pong Dam Oustee for rehabilitation, merits restoration for their livelihood. It is also pleaded that petitioners are agrarians and unaware of procedural technicalities, therefore, the allotment, which was made in favour of their ascendant Sheru @ Sheru Singh as Pong Dam Oustee for rehabilitation, merits restoration for their livelihood. The petitioners have also taken shelter of Rule 7-A of the Rules of 1972 by urging that under the Rules no period of depositing installments is prescribed. Relying on sub-rule (5) of Rule 7 of the Rules of 1972, it is also pleaded that period of 20 years for payment of all installments shall be reckoned from the date of original allotment after restoration and payment has to be rescheduled and made in equal annual installments. Elaborating his ground further, the petitioners have pleaded that when no limitation for depositing installments was available under the Rules of 1972, cancellation of allotment is unjust and improper. 8. Respondent-State of Rajasthan filed its reply to the writ petition wherein most of the facts are admitted. However, the respondent-State defended the impugned order as well as order of cancellation of allotment. Besides joining issue with the petitioners on merits, in reply to the grounds, State has submitted that after rejection of State’s revision petition by the Board of Revenue, petitioners woke up 8 years later and, therefore, no indulgence can be granted to them. The State has also disputed cultivatory possession of the petitioners on the land in question and per contra pleaded that as per report of the Patwari one Shravan Ram S/o. Kesra Ram is in cultivatory possession of the land in question. Besides reply, one additional affidavit is also submitted on behalf of State sworn-in by Tehsildar (Revenue), Anupgarh for substantiating their positive assertion that petitioners are not in cultivatory possession of the land in question. In the additional affidavit, Tehsildar has also stated on oath that being trespasser, proceedings were initiated against Shravan Ram under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Colonisation Act, 1954. 9. To counter the affidavit of Tehsildar (Revenue), petitioner No. 3 Beerbal, on his own behalf and on behalf of other petitioners as their power of attorney, submitted an additional affidavit. In the additional affidavit, it is stated on oath by Beerbal that petitioners are in continuous possession of the allotted land and the same is cultivated by one Shravan Ram as their labourer. In the additional affidavit, it is stated on oath by Beerbal that petitioners are in continuous possession of the allotted land and the same is cultivated by one Shravan Ram as their labourer. In the additional affidavit, report given by Tehsildar is also questioned by urging that the same is not based on survey of the land, inasmuch as, Shravan Ram left his job in 2009 and purchased agricultural land in Chak No. 4 KLD of Tehsil Khajuwala, District Bikaner and is cultivating the same since its purchase. In support thereof, along with the additional affidavit, Jamabandi of aforesaid land in the name of Shravan Ram was also placed on record as Annex. 9. 10. Besides affidavit of Beerbal, affidavit of Shravan Ram is also submitted by the petitioners containing following recitals: “3. That I submit here most humbly that for all these years when I was working on the land of the petitioners, to the best of my knowledge, neither did the petitioners transfer or assign the said land to any other person including myself. Also, the Respondent state, through its officers on some occasions sent notices in my name and I as well as the petitioner No. 3 went to them and informed that the land is possession of the petitioners and I am only working there upon under the petitioners. 4. That I may also submit here that since I collected some money over the last few years when I started cultivating the land belonging to the petitioners on crop sharing basis, I purchased agricultural land of my own at Chak 4 KLD itself at Murraba No. 171/17 measuring 17.19 Bighas from Shri Tej Singh S/o. Jalam Singh and since then I am cultivating the said land and had left the job and work from the petitioners since the year 2009. 5. That I also submit here that I have seen the report given by the patwari as annexed with the additional affidavit of the tehsildar and I state on oath that the said report is wrong as I was not present as owner or encroacher over the land in question and apparently the said report was prepared while sitting in office and no notices were served upon me after year 2009.” The additional affidavit of Beerbal and specific affidavit of Shravan Ram, employed by petitioners as labourer, are not controverted by the respondent-State. 11. 11. Arguing on behalf of the petitioners, learned counsel Mr. Hemant Jain has reiterated all the grounds canvassed in the writ petition. Learned counsel has further submitted that the allotment was made to original allottee Sheru @ Sher Singh as Pong Dam Oustee for rehabilitation and earning his livelihood, therefore, it would be just and appropriate to take a benevolent view in the matter. Learned counsel has further urged that the petitioners are prepared to pay requisite amount/installments as per Rules of 1972 along with interest accrued thereon. In support of his arguments, learned counsel Mr. Jain has placed reliance on following judgments: 1. Kartar Singh Vs. Union of India 1989 (1) RLW 678 2. Shanti Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. 2005 (4) WLC (Raj.) 286 12. Per contra, learned Additional Government Counsel, Mr. Dinesh Joshi has stoutly defended the impugned order. It is submitted by learned Additional Government Counsel that in view of inaction/apathy on the part of the petitioners, no indulgence can be granted to them so as to annul the impugned order and restore allotment of land in their favour. I have considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the materials available on record. 13. While it is true that there was inaction on the part of the petitioners in challenging the cancellation of allotment but then after upsetting of the cancellation order, admittedly, Tehsildar (Revenue) has not issued any order restoring allotment of land in their favour. The learned Revenue Appellate Authority, while setting aside the order of cancellation of allotment, has observed that it was passed behind the back of petitioners in gross violation of principles of natural justice. The Revenue Appellate Authority has also recorded an affirmative finding that allotted land is in cultivatory possession of the petitioners. Moreover, the operative portion of the order is also clear and unequivocal wherein directions are given to the Tehsildar to restore allotment after taking requisite installments with interest from the petitioners. This sort of situation pre-supposes that it was expected of the Tehsildar (Revenue) to first pass order restoring allotment and further to call upon the petitioners to deposit requisite installments with interest accrued thereon. 14. It appears that requisite exercise was not undertaken by the Tehsildar (Revenue) for the reason that State was not satisfied with the order of Revenue Appellate Authority. 14. It appears that requisite exercise was not undertaken by the Tehsildar (Revenue) for the reason that State was not satisfied with the order of Revenue Appellate Authority. It is also evident from the fact that State preferred a revision petition before learned Board of Revenue. The learned Board of Revenue rejected the revision petition on 2nd of April, 2004 and while rejecting the revision petition, the learned Board of Revenue has upheld the order passed by Revenue Appellate Authority. Thus, even after rejection of the revision petition of State, if no specific order was passed by competent authority restoring allotment of land in favour of the petitioners they cannot be wholesomely blamed for the alleged inaction. In that background, non-adherence of a verdict which has attained finality, by the State authorities, is a significant fact so as to bail out the agrarian-petitioners for delay on their part. 15. The allotment was not restored in favour of petitioners is also clearly apparent from a bare perusal of Annex. 4 dated 9th of January, 2012 addressed to Sub Divisional Officer, Anupgarh by Tehsildar (Revenue), Anupgarh. The relevant excerpt in vernacular reads as under: izkFkhZ;k dk 'kiFk lyaXu izLrqr gS ftlds vuqlkj ikfjokfjd dkj.kksa fu.kZ; fnŒ 2-4-04 ls vkfnukad rd jkf'k tek ugha djok ldhA izkFkhZ;k ekuuh; U;k;ky; jktLo eMay vtesj ds fu.kZ; dh ikyuk es jkf'k tek djokdj jdck cgky djokuk pkgrh gSA fjiksVZ Jheku th dh lsok esa jkf'k tek djokus ,oa cgkyh vkns'k gsrq izLrqr gSA lknjA lgh@& rglhynkj&jktLo vuwix< 16. Therefore, in that background, in my opinion, the petitioners, who are legal heirs of Sheru @ Sher Singh - a Pong Dam Oustee, cannot be deprived of the allotted land and by applying the ratio decidendi of Bench decision in Kartar Singh’s case (supra), they can be asked to deposit requisite amount of installments alongwith interest @ 15% per annum. The operative part of Kartar Singh’s judgment reads as under: “This writ petition is, therefore, allowed. The petitioners shall be entitled to retain possession of the land provided they make payment of the balance amount of Rs. 7153.31 p. together with interest thereon at the rate of Rs. 15% per annum with effect from 23.06.1967 till the date of deposit. Counsel for the petitioners prays for two month’s time to deposit the aforesaid amount. Two month’s time is allowed. 7153.31 p. together with interest thereon at the rate of Rs. 15% per annum with effect from 23.06.1967 till the date of deposit. Counsel for the petitioners prays for two month’s time to deposit the aforesaid amount. Two month’s time is allowed. After depositing of the amount, the land shall be mutated in the name of the petitioners. In case the complete amount is not deposited as aforesaid, the writ petition shall stand dismissed.” 17. In Smt. Shanti Devi (supra), learned Single Judge of this Court, while construing second proviso to sub-rule (5) of Rule 7 of the Rules of 1972, observed that no time limit can be fixed for depositing installments and an order fixing time limit is illegal. The Court held: “From the facts detailed above what clearly emerges is that when the first order Annexure-2 was passed, the concerned authority did not take into consideration the second proviso of Sub-rule 5 of Rule 7 reproduced above. The said proviso in terms enjoins upon the concerned authority to demand payment of price in 20 equal installments commencing from the date of fresh allotment calculated at the scale of price in force on the commencement of the Rules of 1982 and an amount of installment already deposited has to be adjusted. As per sub-rule 5 the price has to be paid in 20 annual installments. The petitioner was thus to deposit the remaining installments by way of 20 installments whereas she was asked to do so within 90 days, Once again, even though not on the application of the petitioner, as filling of the same is disputed by the State, the concerned authority took the matter on second occasion suo motu under the provisions of Rule 8-AA and restored the land to the petitioner. However, it made the same mistake again by fixing the time for payment of installments as 45 days as compared to 20 installments under the relevant rules quoted above. The time fixation in the impugned order subject matter of challenge before the Court was wholly illegal being against the Rules. The said order has thus necessarily to be set aside.” In view of forgoing discussion, the instant writ petition is allowed, impugned orders dated 06.02.2012 (Annex. 6) and 05.03.2012 (Annex. The time fixation in the impugned order subject matter of challenge before the Court was wholly illegal being against the Rules. The said order has thus necessarily to be set aside.” In view of forgoing discussion, the instant writ petition is allowed, impugned orders dated 06.02.2012 (Annex. 6) and 05.03.2012 (Annex. 8) are quashed and set aside and the respondents State is directed to permit the petitioners to retain possession of the land in question, provided they make payment of total/balance amount of installments along with interest @15% per annum from the date of allotment within a period of two months from today. If the requisite amount along with interest is deposited by the petitioners, then the land shall be mutated in favour of the petitioners by the revenue authorities. It is made clear that if the entire due amount with interest is not deposited within the stipulated period, the writ petition shall stand dismissed. The stay petition is also disposed of.