JUDGMENT : 1. By way of instant writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- (a) the impugned order dated 03.04.2002 (Annexure-P/11), impugned judgments dated 16.11.2002 (Annexure-P/12), dated 17.01.2007 (Annexure-P/13), dated 27.04.2015 (Annexure-P/14) and dated 04.11.2015 (Annexure-P/15) may kindly be quashed and set aside. (b) the application dated 22.12.1992 filed by the humble petitioner may kindly be allowed. (c) the respondents may kindly be directed to enter mutation of the land in question in name of the purchasers and accordingly enter in the record or rights. (d) cost of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the humble petitioner. (e) any other order writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the humble petitioner.” 2. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that 13 landless persons formed a Cooperative Society, namely, Rama Tenant Krishi Sahakari Samiti Limited Surewala (hereinafter referred to as ‘Samiti’) in the year 1960. Vide order dated 23.06.1960, the District Collector, Sri Ganganagar allotted 195 bighas irrigated sandy loam land to the said ‘Samiti’ under the Provisions of the Rajasthan (Allotment of Land to Cooperative Societies) Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 1959”) at the sale/allotment price of Rs.200/- per bigha instead of rent as provided under the Rules of 1959. In pursuance of the above order dated 23.06.1960, the Revenue Authority made allotment entry in the sale register and also entered schedule of installments of the payment. On 21.05.1974, the members of the said ‘Samiti’ deposited full and final payment of land cost. Thereafter on 18.07.1974, the District Collector issued Sanad of the land in the name of the said ‘Samiti’ under condition No.9 of the Rajasthan (General Colony) Conditions, 1955 (for short, “the Conditions of 1955”). 4. He submitted that as per the provisions of the Rules of 1959, if number of members of a Society is between 11 to 15, then 106.66 bighas of irrigated land could be allotted to that Society, but in the present case the land was allotted following the Rajasthan Colonisation (Bhakra Project Government Land Allotment and Sale) Rules, 1955. 4. He submitted that as per the provisions of the Rules of 1959, if number of members of a Society is between 11 to 15, then 106.66 bighas of irrigated land could be allotted to that Society, but in the present case the land was allotted following the Rajasthan Colonisation (Bhakra Project Government Land Allotment and Sale) Rules, 1955. In the circumstances, on 03.03.1976 the members of the said ‘Samiti’ passed a resolution for partition of land and for submitting an application before the competent authority to make separate revenue account in the revenue records. Thereafter, the tenants of the said ‘Samiti’ submitted an application before the learned Assistant Settlement Officer enclosing all the documents, who after obtaining office report, passed an order dated 14.10.1977 granting khatedari rights to the tenants of the said ‘Samiti’. In pursuance of the said order dated 14.10.1977, entry of the khatedari rights (in the jamabandi) was made in the revenue record in the name of members of the said ‘Samiti’ and thus they were vested with khatedari rights. 5. Learned counsel further contended that by way of registered sale deed dated 02.03.1982, the petitioner purchased 6 bighas land from its khatedar, namely Shri Mala Singh S/o Jala Singh in his name and in the name of his two brothers. On 22.12.1992, the petitioner submitted an application before the District Collector, Hanumangarh to grant permission of the sale and to regularize the sale dated 02.03.1982, as required under the provisions of Section 13 and 13-A of the Rajasthan Colonisation Act, 1954 (for short, “the Act of 1954”). The Additional District Collector sought reports from the Patwari and Tehsildar concerned, who submitted their report on 13.08.1993 and 28.06.1997 respectively to the effect that as per the revenue record, the land in question is khatedari land of Mala Singh S/o Jala Singh. The petitioner deposited compounding fee as well as interest vide cash challan dated 30.06.1997. The State Government on 22.04.1991 issued a notification exempting from requirement of obtaining prior permission of sale, as required under Section 13 of the Act of 1954. 6. It was contended that the District Collector, Hanumangarh vide order dated 03.04.2002 rejected the application of the petitioner and ordered that the land in question be resumed in favour of the State Government. 6. It was contended that the District Collector, Hanumangarh vide order dated 03.04.2002 rejected the application of the petitioner and ordered that the land in question be resumed in favour of the State Government. Being aggrieved with the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Hanumangarh, who dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated 16.11.2002. Challenging the said judgment of the Revenue Appellate Authority, a second appeal was preferred by the petitioner, which also came to be dismissed by the Board of Revenue vide judgment dated 17.01.2007. A review petition filed against the judgment dated 17.01.2007 was also dismissed by the Board of Revenue vide order dated 27.04.2015. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred special appeal and that too was dismissed by the Board of Revenue vide judgment dated 04.11.2015 being not maintainable. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the State Government vide notification dated 23.06.2007 made an amendment in Rule 13-A of the Rules of 1955 inserting sub-rule (8) after existing sub-rule (7) of Rule 13-A. As per sub-rule (8), if the land allotted to a member of the Society is resumed under the Rules of 1959, then the allotting authority may instead of ejecting him, allot the land on price, as prescribed. It was submitted that in the instant case, the land in question was allotted in the name of the said ‘Samiti’ but at the time of allotment it was ordered to pay full price, as provided under Rule 17 of the Rules of 1955, instead of rent rates as provided under Rule 5 of the Rules of 1959. In these circumstances, the learned Assistant Settlement Officer passed the order dated 14.10.1977 directing to give khatedari rights to the members of the said ‘Samiti’, but the District Collector exceeding his jurisdiction passed the order dated 03.04.2002 rejecting the application of the petitioner and directed that the land in question be resumed in favour of the State Government. 8. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the coordinate Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur in Bhagwani Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan through the Distt. 8. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the coordinate Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur in Bhagwani Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan through the Distt. Collector, Sri Ganganagar & Ors., 2008(1) CDR 781 (Raj.), wherein it was held that after insertion of proviso to Section 13(1), the State Government has issued a notification exempting the command land in these area from requirement of obtaining prior permission of sale. He, therefore, prayed that the impugned orders dated 03.04.2002, 16.11.2002, 17.01.2007, 27.04.2015, 04.11.2015 may be quashed and set aside and the writ petition may be allowed. 9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents supported the impugned judgments passed by the District Collector, Revenue Appellate Authority and the Board of Revenue contending that the same have been passed in accordance with law and no interference in the same is called for. He, therefore, prayed that the writ petition may be dismissed. 10. Having considered the rival submissions of the respective parties and upon perusal of the record, it is revealed that:- (a) The District Collector, Sri Ganganagar vide order dated 23.06.1960 allotted 195 Bigha command sandy loam land to the landless members of ‘the Samiti’ under the provisions of the Rules of 1959. However, it was ordered to charge sale/allotment price instead of rent rates, as prescribed in Rule 5 of the said Rules. The entry in respect of the same was made in the sale register and the schedule of installments was also entered therein. (b) Thereafter, the members of the said ‘Samiti’ deposited the entire sale price in the schedule installments along with interest. The full and final payment of the entire sale price came to be deposited on 21.05.1974. (c) Subsequently on 18.07.1974, the District Collector, Sri Ganganagar issued a ‘Sanad’ in favour of the said ‘Samiti’ under condition No.9 of Conditions of 1955. (d) On 03.03.1976, the members of the said ‘Samiti’ passed a resolution in regard to partition of the said land and also in regard to making an application before the authority concerned for separate revenue account in the revenue record. In pursuance thereto, all the 13 members submitted an application before the learned Assistant Settlement Officer, Hanumangarh for declaring themselves as khatedar tenants of the said land. In pursuance thereto, all the 13 members submitted an application before the learned Assistant Settlement Officer, Hanumangarh for declaring themselves as khatedar tenants of the said land. Learned Assistant Settlement Officer after making enquiry, declared all the 13 members as khatedar tenants of the said land and their names were entered in the revenue record as such vide order dated 14.10.1977. (e) The aforesaid order dated 14.10.1977 was not challenged by the State Government before the appropriate appellate authority and on the contrary, the District Collector, Hanumangarh vide order dated 03.04.2002 reverted the said order dated 14.10.1977, thereby resuming the land in question in favour of the State Government. As such, the procedure adopted by the District Collector, Hanumangarh was against the well settled process of law. 11. Though the Courts below including the Board of Revenue, Ajmer came to the conclusion that no individual khatedari or gair khatedari rights can be given in the allotted land to any member of the cooperative society, but the authority below failed to consider the relevant provisions contained in Rule 5(2) of the Rules of 1959. In the said Rule, it is categorically stated that the allotment of the land shall be subject to payment of rent/sanctioned rent rates applicable to the land, whereas in the instant case the land in question was not allotted to ‘the Samiti’ on payment of rent on the sanctioned rent rates, on the contrary the said land was allotted to the ‘Samiti’ on the rate of sale/allotment price prescribed under Rule 17 of the Rules of 1955. The authority below failed to take the aforesaid factual and legal aspect into account while passing the impugned orders/judgments. Needless to say that the khatedari rights on the land in question were given to the tenants of the said land on 14.10.1977 by the competent authority, however the Courts below wrongly appreciated this fact that the land in question was purchased prior to cancellation of the registration of the said ‘Samiti’. 12. Upon perusal of condition No.9 of the Conditions of 1955, it is revealed that ‘Sanad’ can only be granted if the grantee has paid to the Government the purchase money and by way of ‘Sanad’, the tenant shall have khatedari rights in the said land. 12. Upon perusal of condition No.9 of the Conditions of 1955, it is revealed that ‘Sanad’ can only be granted if the grantee has paid to the Government the purchase money and by way of ‘Sanad’, the tenant shall have khatedari rights in the said land. Thus, payment of purchase money was a pre-requisite condition and in this matter the members of the said ‘Samiti’ had already paid the entire purchase money of the land so allotted by order dated 23.06.1960. 13. In addition to it, condition No.10 of the Conditions of 1955 deals with withdrawal of the khatedari rights, according to which the Collector after giving opportunity of hearing to the grantee, may refuse to allow acquisition of khatedari rights, if he finds any of the conditions mentioned in Condition (a) to (e) to be violated. However, in the present case, there was no case of violation of any of the said conditions. 14. That apart, the District Collector, Hanumangarh did not give any opportunity of hearing to the tenants before passing the impugned order. Even before cancelling the registration of the ‘Samiti’, no opportunity of hearing was given to the tenants. 15. As per Section 13(1) of the Act of 1954, there was a condition precedent that, if any khatedar transfers his rights or interest in land, then he shall get previous consent in writing from the State Government. Thereafter, the State Government inserted the proviso to Section 13(1) to the effect that the State Government may exclude any area or class of tenants from the operation of sub-section (1). After insertion of the aforesaid proviso, the State Government issued a notification dated 22.04.1991 exempting command land in these areas from the requirement of obtaining prior permission of sale, as required under Section 13(1) of the Act of 1954. As a matter of fact, there was no need to obtain prior permission of sale of land and, therefore, in the light of the notification dated 22.04.1991, it was enjoined upon the District Collector, Hanumangarh to have passed the order that there was no need to obtain prior permission of sale and ought to have directed the concerned Tehsildar to make entry in the revenue record by way of mutation in the name of the writpetitioner. However, ignoring the said legal position, the District Collector, Hanumangarh wrongly passed the order resuming the land in favour of the State Government. However, ignoring the said legal position, the District Collector, Hanumangarh wrongly passed the order resuming the land in favour of the State Government. 16. The State Government issued another notification dated 23.06.2007, whereby Rule 13A of the Rules of 1955 was amended and new sub-rule (8) was inserted. The said sub-rule (8) provides that if the land allotted to the cooperative society and such land resumed under the Rules of 1959, then the allotting authority may instead of ejecting the tenant, allot the land on payment as mentioned in sub-rule(8). However, the District Collector, Hanumangarh failed to consider this legal position also while passing the impugned order. The Revenue Appellate Authority and the Board of Revenue, Ajmer also vide their impugned judgments failed to consider the legal and factual aspects in proper perspective. 17. In view of the above, in the considered view of this Court, the impugned orders/judgments suffer from illegality and the same deserve to be quashed and set aside. 18. Consequently, the writ petition succeeds and the same is hereby allowed. The impugned orders/judgments dated 03.04.2002, 16.11.2002, 17.01.2007, 27.04.2015 and 04.11.2015 are quashed and set aside. The application of the petitioner dated 22.12.1992 is allowed and the respondents are directed to enter mutation of the land in question in the name of the purchasers and accordingly enter in the record of rights.