ORDER : Civil Misc. Application No.1/2019: 1. For the reasons stated in the application, delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 2. The application is allowed. Special Appeal (Writ) No.458/2019: 3. The decision of the learned Single Judge is appealed against by these proceedings. The learned Single Judge had allowed the State’s writ petition questioning an order of the Board of Revenue which affirmed the decision of the Revenue Appellate Authority. The original Revenue Authority had cancelled the allotment made to the appellant, inter-alia, on the ground that he had suppressed material facts and secured the grant. The Revenue Appellate Authority reversed that order. At the same time, it was noticed by the Revenue Authority that the nature and character of the land was as ‘johar paitan’ (water catchment area) and nevertheless the Revenue Appellate Authority felt that there was no impediment to its allotment. The Board of Revenue declined the State’s appeal. 4. The learned Single Judge by the impugned order allowed the State’s writ petition after noticing the previous decision of this Court in Ramswaroop vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. [D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11412/2012-decided on 15.07.2016] which relied upon the previous ruling of this Court in Abdul Rahman vs. State of Rajasthan [2005 RRT 59]. It was also noticed that Section 16 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 and Rule 17 framed thereunder cast impediment on the allotment of such lands. On this ground the writ petition has been allowed. 5. The appellant contends through his counsel that there was no material on record to suggest that lands were ‘johar paitan’ and besides the original reason for cancellation of allotment was suppression of material facts and that the Revenue Authorities could not have given a different rationing in the circumstance. 6. This Court is of the opinion that there is no infirmity with the impugned order. It was noticed by the learned Single Judge that the Revenue Appellate Authority-the first officer superior in the hierarchy in the revenue assistance, himself noticed that the lands were ‘johar paitan’ but erroneously was under the impression that it could still be allotted. This aspect seems to have escaped the notice of the RAA as well as the Board of Revenue. The learned Single Judge merely corrected that error in view of the prohibition under Section 16 and Rule 17. 7. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed as unmerited.