JUDGMENT : 1. This writ petition under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner for the following reliefs :- (1) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the order dt.08.10.2015 (Annex.9) passed by the learned Board of Revenue in Appeal/LR/7276/2010 may kindly be quashed and set aside; (2) The judgments dt.30.10.2010 (Annex.7) and 29.11.2010 (Annex.8) passed by the District Collector (Ind.) and RAA, Udaipur may very kindly be upheld and maintained. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that a land comprised in Araji No.48 measuring 1.00 bigha, village Faujbadli, district Udaipur was allotted to Shri Babulal for establishing industry by the District Collector (Industries), Udaipur on 13.2.1987 on 99 year lease-basis. On 19.2.1987, possession of the land was handed-over to allottee and lease-deed was executed on 31.3.1987. 3. That the officials of Industries Department conducted inspection of site 28.6.2006 and submitted its report, according to which, no industrial activity was being carried out on the land in-question since last 10-12 years. The report dated 28.6.2006 was submitted before the District Collector (Industries), Udaipur. The District Collector (Industries), Udaipur issued show-cause notice to M/s. Kalika Industries, to which, no reply was filed. 4. That by an order dated 15.1.2007 (Annex.3), District Collector (Industries), Udaipur cancelled allotment of land in favour of respondent-firm on account of violation of terms and conditions of lease-deed and provisions of Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of land for industrial purposes) Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules of 1959’). 5. That being aggrieved against the order dated 15.1.2077, the allottee-Shri Babulal Nagouri filed an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, being Appeal No.18/2007, which was decided vide order dated 24.4.2008 wherein the order dated 15.1.2007 was set aside and the District Collector (Ind), Udaipur was directed to decide the matter afresh after providing an opportunity of hearing to the allottee. 6. That after the matter was remanded the allottee was provided opportunity of being heard and produce the evidence. After hearing arguments of the parties, District Collector, Udaipur passed an order dated 22.12.2008 whereby allotment of land in question in favour of Shri Babulal Nagouri was cancelled and the Tehsildar, Vallabhnagar was directed to take possession of the land. 7. 6. That after the matter was remanded the allottee was provided opportunity of being heard and produce the evidence. After hearing arguments of the parties, District Collector, Udaipur passed an order dated 22.12.2008 whereby allotment of land in question in favour of Shri Babulal Nagouri was cancelled and the Tehsildar, Vallabhnagar was directed to take possession of the land. 7. That being aggrieved against the order dated 22.12.2008, respondent-Kamla Bai preferred an appeal before the learned Revenue Appellate Authority stating that the land in-question has been purchased by her in the year 1996 and she was not provided an opportunity of being heard. The said appeal was allowed by the RAA, Udaipur vide order dated 12.4.2010 and matter was again remanded to the District Collector (Ind), Udaipur for deciding the same afresh after providing an opportunity of hearing to respondent-Smt. Kamla Bai. 8. That after the matter was remanded, the respondent no.1 was provided an opportunity of hearing by the District Collector (Ind.), Udaipur and vide an order dated 30.10.2010, the allotment of land in question was set aside for violation of Rule-7 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Land for Industrial Purposes) Rules, 1959 and Tehsildar, Vallabhnagar was directed to take possession of the land in-question. It was also directed that disciplinary proceedings be initiated against the Sub-Registrar/Tehsildar who registered the sale-deed dated 8.11.1996 without prior approval of the competent authority for transfer of land. 9. That being aggrieved against the order dated 30.10.2010, respondent no.1 preferred an appeal before the learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Udaipur being Appeal No.114/2010. The appeal preferred by the respondent no.1 was rejected by the RAA, Udaipur vide order dated 29.11.2010 (Annex.8). 10. That being aggrieved against the order dated 29.11.2010, the respondent no.1 preferred an appeal before the learned Board of Revenue, Ajmer. 11. That appeal preferred by the respondent no.1 came-up before the learned Board of Revenue on 8.10.2015 and the learned Board of Revenue accepted the same. 12. That in the aforesaid circumstance, being aggrieved against the decision dated 08.10.2015 (Annex.9) passed by the learned Board of Revenue, Ajmer, the petitioner prefers the present writ petition. 13. 11. That appeal preferred by the respondent no.1 came-up before the learned Board of Revenue on 8.10.2015 and the learned Board of Revenue accepted the same. 12. That in the aforesaid circumstance, being aggrieved against the decision dated 08.10.2015 (Annex.9) passed by the learned Board of Revenue, Ajmer, the petitioner prefers the present writ petition. 13. Counsel for the petitioner-State submitted that the decision dated 08.10.2015 (Annex.9) passed by learned Board of Revenue, Ajmer is erroneous and is liable to be quashed and set aside for the reason that the Board of Revenue has failed to appreciate the Rule 7 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of land for industrial purposes) Rules, 1959. Rule 7 of the Rules of 1959 reads as follows : Rule 7. Setting up of Industries – Industries shall be set up within a period of two years on the land allotted for the purpose, failing which the land shall revert to the Government, unless the period of two years is extended by the allotting authorities vor valid reasons. Provided that if such land could not be used for Industrial purposes within the period as prescribed above, the State Government may extend the period further as deemed proper. In such cases, the application shall move application through the Divisional Commissioner who after examination of the case, forward the same to the State Government with his comments.” 14. Counsel for the petitioner-State submitted that according to Rule 7 of the Rules of 1959, the allottee was required to set up industrial unit within two years on the land allotted for the purpose, failing which, the land shall revert to the Government. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent had not utilized the land in-question for industry, which is evident from the inspection report, which stated that from last 10 to 12 year’s from the date of inspection by the officials of Industries Department the respondent has not utilized the land for industrial purpose. 16. Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that as per the terms and conditions of the lease-deed and allotment letter, the original allottee i.e. Shri Babulal Nagori could not have transferred the land in-question to present respondent no.1 without prior approval of the State Government. 16. Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that as per the terms and conditions of the lease-deed and allotment letter, the original allottee i.e. Shri Babulal Nagori could not have transferred the land in-question to present respondent no.1 without prior approval of the State Government. He also submitted that when the respondent no.1 purchased the land in-question, the same was not being used for industrial purpose by its original allottee and even thereafter did not use it for industrial purpose. Therefore, the respondent no.1 is not entitled to get any relief from the court. 17. Per contra, counsel for the respondent submitted that after the land was allotted to the original allottee on 13.2.1987 on a lease of 99 years, an industry was established, boundary wall and shed were constructed. Furthermore, the Certificate of AVVNL No.1133 dated 03.11.2008 issued in favour of subsequent purchaser certifies that the unit has been given electricity connection of 15 HP in the category of “Small-Scale Industry.” Thus, the original allottee had complied with Rule 7 of the Rules of 1959. 18. Learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that the transfer of land to the subsequent purchaser has been accepted by the Tehsildar concerned, which also stands proved as the Revenue Appellate Authority in its decision dated 12.4.2010 has recorded the name of respondent-Smt. Kamla Bai in place of the original allottee Shri Babulal Nagori. Therefore, the petitioner-State cannot take the plea that the sale was executed without prior permission of State Government. 19. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 20. The allotment order dated 13.2.1987 and lease-deed dated 31.3.87 had been executed in favour of Kalika Industries through Proprietor Babulal Nagori. It is apparent that the respondent could not set up an industry within a period of two years on the said land. The respondent was under an obligation to establish that he had set up an industry on the said land within a period of two years but nothing concrete was placed by the respondent no.1, rather a copy of Registry was placed on record showing that the allotted land in-dispute was transferred in favour of the respondent no.1 on 15.03.1997 and the name of Smt. Kamla Bai is entered instead of Kalika Industries. The learned Revenue Appellate Authority in its order dated 8.10.2015 has given a finding that the respondent sought some time before it to start a new industry on account of closure of the earlier one and based on this statement, the learned Revenue Appellate Authority remanded the matter back to the District Collector for passing order afresh. However, the respondent during the arguments before the District Collector instead of seeking time to establish a new industry prayed that the nature of land in-dispute be changed from commercial use to residential use and the District Collector, therefore, upheld the order of cancellation of allotment of land in-dispute. The act of the respondent shows the intention of the respondent and the purpose for which he wanted to utilize the land in-dispute. The learned Revenue Appellate Authority held that on the one hand the respondent sought time before the Revenue Appellate Authority to establish a new industry and on the other hand an application was moved before the District Collector for changing the use of land from commercial to residential. 21. This Court finds that the learned Board of Revenue has failed to appreciate the aforementioned aspects of the case. The learned Board of Revenue without appreciating the facts and record of the case has held that once industry was established and the industry was running for two years, then as per Rule 7 of the Rules of 1959, the whole of such an industrial unit can be sold and in this case also the entire land was sold. The learned Board of Revenue also gave a finding that similarly it has been mentioned in Rule 9(2) of the Rules of 1959 that once the land has been used for the purpose for which it was allotted within the period prescribed in Rule 7, the lessee shall have his right of interest in the whole of the land so allotted. 22. 22. This Court finds that the basic requirement of fulfilling the condition of Rule 7 of the Rules of 1959 has not been made by the respondent as an industry had not been established within a period of two years and nothing substantial was placed on record by the respondent to demonstrate the same, therefore, the writ petition is allowed and the decision dated 08.10.2015 (Annex.9) passed by the learned Board of Revenue, Ajmer in Appeal No. Appeal/LR/7276/2010 is reversed and the decision dated 29.11.2010 (Annex.8) passed by the learned Revenue Appellate Authority dated 29.11.2010 (Annex.8) is upheld. No order as to costs.