ORDER : 1. The appellant is aggrieved by a common order of the learned Single Judge to hold that the restoration of allotment of lands to the respondent which stood cancelled, the operation of first proviso to Rule 17(8) of the Rajasthan Colonisation (Allotment and Sale of Government Land in the Indira Gandhi Canal Colony Area) Rules, 1975, was valid. 2. The undisputed facts are that on account of the default in payment of land revenue for more than two consecutive installments and by operation of first proviso to Rule 17(8), the allotment of agricultural lands to the respondent, who had been granted the benefit on account of his being a landless person, stood cancelled. The respondent did not move for restoration of the allotment. Subsequently the Rules were amended from time to time; more pertinently they were amended in 2013. By the concerned amendment of the Rules stated as follows:- “3. Amendment of rule 17.- In sub-rule (8) of rule 17 of the said rules, the existing second proviso shall be substituted by the following new proviso, namely:- “Provided further that where the allottee fails to deposit the installments of price of land, no action for cancellation of allotment of land shall be taken by the allotting authority if the allottee deposits the remaining unpaid price of land without any interest as lump sum up to 31.12.2013. Provided also that where the allotment of land has been cancelled for non-payment of installments of price of land and land has not been allotted to any other person, the allotment shall be restored if the allottee deposits the remaining unpaid price of land without any interest as lump sum up to 31.12.2013. Provided further that where the allotment of land by sale has been cancelled for non-payment of installments of price of land and land has not been resold to any other person, the allotment shall be restored if the purchaser deposits the remaining unpaid price of land without any interest as lump sum up to 31.12.2013.” 3. The respondent grantee applied for restoration of the lands. This was considered and based upon a site report of the Tehsildar, the allotment was restored. The appellant challenged that, firstly, by seeking to appeal before the Appellate Authority and subsequently, before the Board of Revenue unsuccessfully. Both these fora held that the appellant had no locus-standi. The respondent grantee applied for restoration of the lands. This was considered and based upon a site report of the Tehsildar, the allotment was restored. The appellant challenged that, firstly, by seeking to appeal before the Appellate Authority and subsequently, before the Board of Revenue unsuccessfully. Both these fora held that the appellant had no locus-standi. In these circumstances, he approached this Court contending that since he was in possession, he had a right to be heard and that denial of natural justice invalidated the restoration of the allotment granted to the respondent. 4. The learned Single Judge rejected the appellant’s writ petition after noticing that although he claimed to be in possession, there was no material to substantiate such a contention. The learned Single Judge also noticed that the appellant had never sought for allotment of the lands. 5. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that under Rule 21A, a person in possession is entitled to claim allotment. Learned counsel also relied upon the documents placed on record in the appeal, in the form of copies of the khasra Girdawari as well as receipts received by the revenue, to submit that the possession cannot be denied and that the appellant had a right to claim allotment in view of the subsequent events. Learned counsel highlighted that the respondent’s allotment was cancelled in 1982 and he approached the authorities for restoration only in 2015 well after the last date given by the amended provision i.e. 31.12.2013. 6. A juxtaposition of the provision of Rule i.e. Rule 17 and its provisos and the amendments carried out to that Rule in 2013, clearly shows that the restoration of a cancelled allotment before the amendment was conditioned upon not a mere deposit of installment but also payment of interest on varying rates between 12% to 18% per annum. The rule making authority apparently sought to alleviate the hardship by providing some kind of composition scheme, enabling the erstwhile grantee to apply for restoration provided he paid the entire defaulting installments in lump sum. 7. Having considered the previous Rule as well as the amended Rule, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Single Judge’s interpretation cannot be faulted. 7. Having considered the previous Rule as well as the amended Rule, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Single Judge’s interpretation cannot be faulted. The power to restore an allotment that stood cancelled on account of operation of the rule, is not extinguished on account of default in payment on or before the stipulated date i.e. 31.12.2013 in this case. The only consequence for such default would be that if the concerned allottee seeks for the restoration of the allotment after that stipulated date, he or she has to deposit the installments with the applicable interest. The appellant’s interpretation in this regard in the opinion of the Court is not acceptable. 8. So far as the other aspect i.e. the appellant’s rights are concerned, again the Court sees no reason to differ with the findings of the learned Single Judge. The appellant could perhaps have, but certainly did not apply for allotment in terms of Rule 21(A). The mere possibility that he could have applied for allotment in no way entitles him to claim that the respondent’s application should have been rejected. Furthermore, the documents placed on the record of the file of this Court in the present appeal merely suggest that at a certain time, the appellant had cultivated the land. No continuous possession authorised or permitted by the concerned owner or parties is shown. 9. In these circumstances, the appeals lack in merit and are accordingly dismissed.