JUDGMENT Sangeet Lodha, J. - This intra-court appeal is directed against order dated 8.12.07 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court whereby the writ petition preferred by first respondent assailing the order dated 24.4.95 of the Additional Collector, Sri Ganganagar, order dated 14.8.95 of the Revenue Appellate Authority ('RAA'), Sri Ganganagar and order dated 13.7.98 of the Board of Revenue, has been allowed and the orders impugned have been quashed. 2. The facts relevant are that the command land ad measuring 12 bighas comprising Square No.211/421, Kila No.14 to 25 in Chak 13 BLM (A) Tehsil-Vijay Nagar, was allotted to one Shri Lal Chand s/o Ghasi Ram and sanad was issued in his favour. Section 13 of the Rajasthan Colonisation Act, 1954 ('the Act'), which prohibits the tenant from transferring his rights or interest in the land by way of sale, mortgage, exchange or gift or creating a charge thereon, without previous consent in writing of the State Government, however, Lal Chand proceeded to sell the land for consideration by way of agreement to sell dated 5.6.86 in favour of Bela Ram s/o Chamba Ram. Bela Ram made an application under Section 13A of the Act, for declaration of sale as valid by making payment of compounding fee to the State. It is stated that Bela Ram expired and thereafter, the agreement to sell was cancelled by mutual consent of Chandra Bhan S/o Bela Ram and Lal Chand on 15.4.90. However, on 9.8.90, Chandra Bhan s/o Bela Ram made an application for depositing compounding fee stating that in family partition, the said land has fallen in his share. The application was rejected by the Additional District Collector, Sri Ganganagar vide order dated 24.4.95 holding that the time for depositing compounding fee has lapsed and accordingly, the property which was already in possesion of the receiver pursuant to order dated 1.10.92 was ordered to be resumed. It is not disputed that neither Chandra Bhan nor Lal Chand questioned the legality of order dated 24.4.95 and the same attained finality. It is not disputed that neither Chandra Bhan nor Lal Chand questioned the legality of order dated 24.4.95 and the same attained finality. However, aggrieved by the order passed by the Additional District Collector as aforesaid, Smt. Bhagwani Devi, the first respondent herein, preferred an appeal before the RAA, Sri Ganganagar, taking the stand that the said land has been purchased by her from allottee Lal Chand by way of registered sale deed dated 5.7.91 and at that relevant time, the requirement of previous consent of the State Government was not there and thus, the resumption of the land to the State is erroneous. The appeal preferred was dismissed by the RAA, Sri Ganganagar vide order dated 14.8.95. Aggrieved thereby, the first respondent preferred second appeal before the Board of Revenue Rajasthan, which stood dismissed by order dated 13.7.98. The writ petition preferred by the first respondent before this Court assailing the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities as aforesaid, has been allowed by the learned Single Judge of this Court by the order impugned. Hence, this intra-court appeal. 3. The writ petition preferred by the first respondent has been allowed by the learned Single Judge of this Court observing that before passing the order of resumption of the land in favour of the State, Smt. Bhagwani Devi, who had purchased the land by way of registered sale deed was not extended an opportunity of hearing and the notification dated 22.4.91 issued by the State Government in exercise of the power conferred under proviso to Section 13(1) of the Act, excluding the lands falling in Indira Gandhi Canal, Bhakhara and Gang Canal Project Area from applicability of the provisions of Section 13(1) of the Act, is not taken into consideration by the authorities concerned. 4. Learned Deputy Government Counsel submitted that the land allotted to Lal Chand was ordered to be resumed vide order dated 24.4.95, while disposing of the application dated 9.8.90 preferred by Chandra Bhan s/o Bela Ram under Section 13A of the Act and thus, there was no occasion for the Additional District Collector to extend an opportunity to Smt. Bhagwani Devi, who alleged to have purchased the land in question from Shri Lal Chand, who had already transferred the land in violation of the provisions of Section 13 of the Act to Bela Ram. Learned counsel submitted that the notification dated 22.4.91 issued by the State Government excluding the area in question from applicability of the provisions of Section 13(1) of the Act, was not applicable in respect of the sale effected by Lal Chand in favour of Bela Ram prior to issuing the said notification. That apart, the said notification has come into force on its publication in the Official Gazette on 23.2.04 and therefore, the sale alleged to have been executed by Shri Lal Chand in favour of first respondent vide registered sale deed dated 4.7.91/6.7.91 does not come out of inhibition contained in Section 13(1) of the Act. Learned counsel submitted that as noticed by the Revenue Authorities, the first respondent was well aware about the proceedings pending on application preferred by Bela Ram and Chandra Bhan inasmuch as in respect of the land in question against the order dated 1.10.92 appointing Receiver, the respondent had preferred an appeal before Appellate Authority, however, she did not choose to intervene in the proceedings pending before the Additional Collector (Administration) for resumption of the land. Learned counsel submitted that Lal Chand having already sold the land to Bela Ram, he had no right whatsoever to enter into agreement to sell in favour of the respondent. It is submitted that admittedly the respondent had preferred no application at any stage for declaration of alleged sale in her favour as valid by making payment of compounding fee and thus, viewed from any angle, the respondent cannot claim any right over the land in question. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the order resuming the land passed by the Additional Collector (Administration), without giving an opportunity of hearing to the respondent, a bonafide purchaser, is ex facie of violative of principle of natural justice. Learned counsel submitted that the sale effected by Lal Chand in favour of Bela Ram having been cancelled by mutual consent vide cancellation deed dated 15.4.90, the subsequent sale by Lal Chand in favour of the respondent was valid and thus, the Additional Collector (Administration) could not have resumed the land by passing an order in the proceedings initiated on the application of Bela Ram for declaring the sale made in his favour in violation of provisions of Section 13(1) of the Act as valid, on payment of compounding fee. Learned counsel submitted that vide order dated 22.4.91, the applicability of Section 13(1) having been excluded by the State Government by issuing a notification under proviso to Section 13(1), the sale of the land by Lal Chand in favour of the respondent by way of registered sale deed dated 5.7.91 is not affected by inhibition contained in Section 13(1) of the Act and therefore, no compounding fee was required to be paid for regularisation of the transfer. Learned counsel would submit that the publication of the notification dated 22.4.91 in the official Gazette on 23.2.04 is of no consequence inasmuch as, once the notification is published in official Gazette, it will be deemed to be effective from the date of its issuance. In this regard, learned counsel relied upon a Single Judge decision of this Court in 'Jugal Kishore Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors,2002 RRD 92. 6. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 7. Indisputably, the disputed land was allotted to Lal Chand s/o Ghasi Ram vide allotment letter dated 14.4.72 issued by the Deputy Commissioner (Colonisation), Shri Vijay Nagar and after payment of full price of the land a 'Sanad' conferring right of khatedari tenancy was issued in his favour by District Collector, Sri Ganganagar in the form prescribed on 20.12.85. It is also not in dispute that the allotment made in his favour was subject to inhibition contained in Section 13(1) of the Act and therefore, he was not authorised to transfer his rights or interest in the land by way of sale, mortgage, exchange or gift or to create a charge thereon, or sub-let the same for more than 5 years without the previous consent in writing of the State Government or the Officer of the State Government authorised in this behalf. 8. It is a common ground between the parties that the original allottee Lal Chand proceeded to sell the disputed land to Bela Ram s/o Chamba Ram by way of agreement dated 5.6.86 without obtaining the consent in writing of the State Government, in violation of the provisions of Section 13(1) of the Act. It is also not in dispute that on the strength of agreement dated 5.6.86, Bela Ram submitted an application for declaring the sale valid and offered to deposit the compounding fee in terms of provisions of Section 13A of the Act. It is also not in dispute that on the strength of agreement dated 5.6.86, Bela Ram submitted an application for declaring the sale valid and offered to deposit the compounding fee in terms of provisions of Section 13A of the Act. It has come on record that Bela Ram expired on 14.11.89 and thereafter on 9.8.90, his son Chandra Bhan made an application for depositing the compounding fee stating that under a family partition the disputed land has fallen in his share. Though the respondent has averred in the writ petition that after death of Bela Ram, his son Chandra Bhan cancelled the agreement to sell by way of cancellation deed dated 15.4.90, but the said document alleged to have been executed on a plain paper does not inspire any confidence, moreso when admittedly on 9.8.90, Chandra Bhan had made an application for declaring the sale valid and offered to deposit the compounding fee and thus, as on the date, Lal Chand executed the sale deed in favour of Smt. Bhagwani Devi, he had no subsisting right over the land in question. 9. Concededly, the proceeding before the Additional Collector (Administration), which culminated in passing of the order dated 24.4.95, resuming the disputed land to the State Government, was initiated on the application preferred by Bela Ram, followed by an application preferred by his son Chandra Bhan for declaration of sale as valid on depositing the compounding fee and thus, in the said proceedings there was no occasion for the Additional Collector (Administration) to extend an opportunity of hearing to the respondent claiming herself to be a bonafide purchaser of the land, moreso, when the facts regarding the subsequent sale by Lal Chand as alleged were never brought on record. That apart, it has come on record that against the order dated 1.10.92 passed by the competent authority appointing receiver of the disputed land was questioned by Smt. Bhagwani Devi by way of an appeal before the Appellate Authority and thus, she was well aware about the proceedings pending on the application made by Chandra Bhan S/o Bela Ram, yet, she did not choose to make an application claiming her right over the disputed land. Thus, nothing turns on the question that while passing the order dated 24.4.95, Smt. Bhagwani Devi was not extended an opportunity of hearing. 10. Thus, nothing turns on the question that while passing the order dated 24.4.95, Smt. Bhagwani Devi was not extended an opportunity of hearing. 10. It is the matter of record that the notification dated 22.4.91 issued by the State Government in exercise of the power conferred under proviso to Section 13 (1) of the Act, whereby the areas falling under Indira Gandhi Canal, Bhakhra and Gang Canal Project were excluded from operation of the provisions of Section 13 (1) of the Act was published in the Official Gazette on 23.2.04 and thus, as on the date, Lal Chand executed the sale deed of the land in question in favour of Smt. Bhagwani Devi, the inhibition contained in Section 13 (1) of the Act against the transfer of the land was operative. Thus, even if for the sake of argument, it is assumed that Shri Lal Chand had subsisting right in the disputed land as on the date, he executed the sale deed in favour of Smt. Bhagwani Devi, the transaction of sale does not come out of the inhibition contained under Section 13 (1) of the Act. It is not the case of the respondents that at any stage Smt. Bhagwani Devi made an application for declaring the sale valid by depositing the compounding fee and thus, the transaction of sale effected in violation of the provisions of Section 13 (1) being invalid, the land was liable to be resumed to the State. 11. Coming to the Single Judge decision of this Court in the matter of Jugal Kishore relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent, that judgment relates to the striking down the proviso to Rule 73 (i) of the Rajasthan Stamp Rules, 1955 wherein the Court held that the effect of the striking down of a provision will be that it never existed on the statute book. In the considered opinion of this Court, the said judgment has no application whatsoever to the controversy involved in the instant case. 12. In view of the discussion above, in our considered opinion, the learned Single Judge has erred in allowing the writ petition preferred by the respondent and quashing the orders impugned. 13. In the result, the special appeal succeeds, it is hereby allowed. Impugned judgment dated 8.12.07 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court is set aside. No order as to costs.