ORDER : 1. The instant writ petition has been preferred under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers:- “It is, therefore, that the writ petition of the petitioner may kindly be allowed by quashing and setting aside the impugned order as Annexure-1, 2 and 3.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that:- The Pong Dam oustees land situated in Chak 5 F.D.M.B. Tehsil-Suratgarh, Square No.98/340 total 25 Bighas was allotted to father of the petitioner on 24.12.1966 (hereinafter referred to as “the land in question”). The possession of the land in question was also allotted to him. However, the allotment of land in question was never cancelled by the competent authority but this land was recorded as the Government Land in the revenue record. 3. The aforesaid land in question was not in surplus for allotment. Despite that, the allotting authority, Suratgarh, allotted the said land in favour of Smt. Amrati Devi on 29.02.2016 without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 4. In this regard, the appeal was filed against the order dated 29.02.2016 by one Harpal Singh, who claimed himself as the purchaser of the land in question from the father of the petitioner herein. It is also pertinent to mention here, that, father of the petitioner had expired in the year 2012 and during his lifetime, no claim whatsoever was made by one Harpal Singh on the land in question. The petitioner was also not aware about the allotment order (Annexure-1) dated 29.02.2016. The appeal of Harpal Singh was dismissed vide order dated 05.05.2016, on the ground that he was a trespasser on the said land. Against the judgment/order dated 05.05.2016, Harpal Singh further preferred the second appeal before the Board of Revenue, Ajmer. 5. During pendency of the appeal, the petitioner filed an application for impleading him as the appellant No.2 in the array of the party appellants. 6. After hearing both the parties, the leaned Board of Revenue, Ajmer, dismissed the appeal on the ground that the original allottee has not preferred any appeal and secondly, there is a breach of allotment rules. 7. Being aggrieved of the impugned orders and the judgment dated 29.02.2016, 05.05.2016 and 28.02.2020, the petitioner prefers the instant writ petition. 8. Learned counsel Mr. 7. Being aggrieved of the impugned orders and the judgment dated 29.02.2016, 05.05.2016 and 28.02.2020, the petitioner prefers the instant writ petition. 8. Learned counsel Mr. N.L. Joshi, representing the petitioner submitted that:- (a) Before allotting the land to the respondent No.2, the allotting authority neither cancelled the allotment made in favour of the father of the petitioner, nor did he gave any notice to the legal representatives of one Bangali Ram, as he expired in the year 2012. (b) The impugned order Annexure-1 dated 29.02.2016 has been passed against the dead persons which is void and suffers from nullity in the eyes of law. (c) The allotting authority has arbitrarily allotted the land in question in favour of the respondent No.2 Smt. Amrati Devi because, firstly, the land was not available for allotment and secondly, complete allotment proceedings were done through the power of attorney. The allottee Smt. Amrati Devi, never appeared before the allotting authority. (d) Due to wrong allotment and irregularity, the allotting authority was trapped by the Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB). (e) The subsequent allotment can only be made only on those lands, which are undisputed and in this writ petition, the said land in question does not comes in the category of ‘undisputed land’. Learned counsel for the petitioner, thus, urges, that the writ petition may be allowed and the impugned orders and the judgment dated 29.02.2016, 05.05.2016 and 28.02.2020, be quashed and set aside qua the petitioner. 9. Per contra, learned counsel representing the private respondent No.2, opposed the submissions advanced by the petitioner’s counsel and submitted that:- (a) The writ petition is not maintainable on the face of the record, because the petitioner was not a party in the matter filed before the Learned Allotment Authority, Suratgarh and the petitioner has not even filed the appeal before the learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Sri Ganganagar. (b) The petitioner has also not filed the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC and was even not a party in the matter placed before the learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Sri Ganganagar. (c) One Harpal Singh has not filed any writ petition before this Court being the main party from the start of this dispute. (b) The petitioner has also not filed the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC and was even not a party in the matter placed before the learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Sri Ganganagar. (c) One Harpal Singh has not filed any writ petition before this Court being the main party from the start of this dispute. (d) Vide judgment dated 16.07.1977 passed by the competent authority, whereby the allotment of the agricultural land in question, has been cancelled due to violation of Allotment Rules 6(5) and 6(6) of the Rajasthan Colonization (Allotment and Sale of Government Land to Pong Dam Oustees in the Indira Gandhi Canal Colony) Rules, 1972, (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1972) and due to violation of these rules, the allotment of the main allotee has been cancelled as per Rule 6(10) of the Rules of 1972. Once the allotment of the original allottee has been cancelled by the competent authority, there is no question of any agreement through which the land can be transferred. (e) The Allotment Officer and the S.D.O., Suratgarh, has passed the order dated 29.02.2016 after considering all the facts and the documents and also after conducting the required enquiries. Therefore, there is no question of giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner because the land was reserved for Pong Dam oustees and allotment of the original allottee has been cancelled earlier by the competent authority. (f) The land was allotted to the respondent No.2 on 29.02.2016 but after a gross delay of four years, the original allottee Shri Bangali Ram did not raise any objection or appeal before the competent authority, as he was aware of the fact that his allotment has been cancelled. Even present petitioners did not file any appeal against the impugned order dated 29.02.2016. 10. Learned counsel representing the respondent No.1-State also opposes the submissions advanced by the petitioner’s counsel and submitted that :- (a) The land in question was initially allotted to father of the present petitioner Shri Bangali Ram on 24.12.1966. Even present petitioners did not file any appeal against the impugned order dated 29.02.2016. 10. Learned counsel representing the respondent No.1-State also opposes the submissions advanced by the petitioner’s counsel and submitted that :- (a) The land in question was initially allotted to father of the present petitioner Shri Bangali Ram on 24.12.1966. When the respondent Department conducted a special survey regarding the allotment of the land in question in favour of Bangali Ram, it came to knowledge, that the allottee Bangali Ram was not in possession of the land and was also not cultivating land in question and further, it was transferred to one Mohan Singh Jat Sikh and he was cultivating the said land. Thereafter, a case was registered against the allottee in violation of the General Colony Conditions. The allottee failed to appear before the competent authority and the allotment of the petitioner was cancelled on 05.07.1974 by the competent authority. (b) The allottee Bangali Ram, filed an appeal before the Additional Commissioner Colonization-cum-RAA in appeal No.754/1976 against the order dated 05.07.1974, which was allowed and the matter was remanded back to the trial court for deciding the matter afresh after providing proper opportunity of hearing to the allottee Bangali Ram, which was decided vide order dated 16.07.1977 by stating therein, that Bangali Ram was not cultivating the land in question but was cultivated by a third person namely Mohan Singh who thereafter, confirmed the fact that Bangali Ram was not residing over the said land in question and the trial court was perfectly justified in stating that the allottee violated the Rule 6(5) and Rule 6(6) of the Rules of 1972 and an appeal was filed by one Additional Commissioner Colonization-cum-Revenue Appellate Authority by Bangali Ram was rejected on 22.06.1982. (c) The applicant Bangali Ram further moved the application before the allotting authority under Rule 8-A of the amended Rules of 1972 and thereafter, the allotting authority restored the allotment of the applicant Bangali Ram on 26.12.1985 on a condition to deposit the installments as er the law within the prescribed time limit and further allotment order was also issued on 09.01.1986 and the applicant was directed to deposit the installments within 45 days to take the possession of the land in question, but he failed to deposit the installments within prescribed time limit and therefore, the restoration order was automatically cancelled after a lapse of 45 days from the date of the allotment order dated 09.01.1986 and thereafter, the petitioner or the allottee never appeared before the competent authority for allotment of land to the Pong Dam Oustees as per the Rules of 1972 and therefore, the matter of respondent No.2 was also considered for the allotment of the land as Pong Dam Oustees and finally the land in question was allotted to the respondent No.2 Amrati Devi as per the Rules of 1972 through the order dated 29.02.2016. The son of Mohan Singh namely Harpal Singh filed the appeal before the revenue appellate authority against the order dated 29.02.2016 and submitted that the land in question was purchased by the appellant through an agreement on 19.12.1987 fro Bangali Ram and possession was also handed over to the appellant and therefore, he prayed to cancel the allotment of the respondent No.2. (d) The writ petition has been filed by the son of original allottee against the order of the Revenue Board, Ajmer, whereas the first appeal was filed by Harpal Singh and second appeal wa filed by Harpal Singh and Kishori lal jointly and now, the writ petition has been filed by Kishori Lal, which is not permissible in the eyes of law and even though, the cancellation order of Bangali Ram became final and the present petitioner is not having any legal right to challenge the allotment of the respondent No.2. (e) The present petitioner filed this writ petition as being legal representative of the original allottee Bangali Ram, whereas, the land in question was never entered in the name of original allottee as cancelled by the competent authority in violation of the Rule 6 of the Rules of 1972 and even though, the first appeal was filed by an attorney holder as well as agreement holder, who submitted himself as a purchaser of the land and the second appeal was also filed jointly by the agreement holder as well as by the present petitioner and submitted to transfer the land to the subsequent purchaser of Mohan Singh and Harpal Singh. After rejection of the appeals as per law, the instant writ petition was filed by the legal representative by concealing the subsequent facts. The land in question was never entered into the name of original allottee and even though, the original allottee failed to deposit the installments after providing the proper opportunity of hearing and therefore, the cancellation of the allotment through the order dated 16.07.1977 became final after rejection of the first appeal on 22.06.1982 and the rejection was never challenged before any competent court and after a lapse of 34 years of the canellation, the land was further allotted to eligible person as per the rules and thereafter, the allotment was challenged whereas, the cancellation was never challenged before any competent authority. (f) The allottee Bangali Ram was not having any legal right and title over the land in question and therefore, the appellate authority held that the allottee never approached before any competent authority and the land was rightly vested with the State Government as Rakba Raj and therefore, the land was rightly allotted to the respondent No.2 Amrati Devi as per the Rules of 1972 and the appeal was rejected on 05.05.2016. (g) The petitioner has invoked extraordinary writ jurisdiction and the writ petition preferred by the petitioner is not maintainable. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner as being the legal representative of the original allottee Bangali Ram but, the land in question was never entered in the name of the original allottee as it was cancelled by the competent authority in violation of the Rule 6 of the Rules of 1972. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner as being the legal representative of the original allottee Bangali Ram but, the land in question was never entered in the name of the original allottee as it was cancelled by the competent authority in violation of the Rule 6 of the Rules of 1972. (h) The allottee was provided ample number of opportunities of hearing and therefore, the allotment was cancelled though a cancellation order dated 16.07.1977 and the rejection was never challenged before any further competent court/authority and after a lapse of 34 years of cancellation, the land was allotted to the eligible person. Learned counsel representing the respondents, thus, urged, that the instant writ petition filed by the petitioner, be dismissed with costs. 11. Heard learned counsel representing the petitioner and the learned counsel representing the respondents and perused the material available on record. 12. This Court finds that the respondent authority cancelled the allotment of the land in dispute on 05.07.1974 against which, father of the petitioner preferred various remedies but both the original authority as well as appellate authority gave a concurrent finding, holding that the allotment of land in favour of father of the petitioner was rightly cancelled. Thereafter, the allotting authority restored the allotment in favour of Shri Bangali Ram on 26.12.1985 with a prerequisite condition to deposit the installments within a period of 45 days and only thereafter Shri Bangali Ram could take the possession of the land in dispute but he failed to deposit the installments in the prescribed time limit and thus, the order for restoration of the land automatically stood cancelled. The petitioner’s father did not challenge the said cancellation and therefore, it attained finality. Thereafter, the respondents after adopting the due process of law, allotted the land in dispute in favour of respondent No.2-Amrata Devi vide order dated 29.02.2016. Harpal Singh, son of Mohan Singh, preferred an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, while challenging the order dated 29.02.2016 with a prayer to cancel the allotment order dated 29.02.2016. The appeal was rejected vide order dated 05.05.2016 and the same was challenged before the Board of Revenue, Ajmer and the second appeal also came to be rejected vide order dated 04.03.2020. The appeal was rejected vide order dated 05.05.2016 and the same was challenged before the Board of Revenue, Ajmer and the second appeal also came to be rejected vide order dated 04.03.2020. It is important to note, that the present writ petition has been filed by the son of Bangali Ram (original allottee) whereas, the land allotment order in favour of Bangali Ram, stood cancelled automatically upon not fulfilling the condition preceding and which was never challenged. Thus, the petitioner has no locus to challenge the order dated 28.02.2020 passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer, particularly, when the land in question was never entered in the name of Shri Bangali Ram. The earlier orders by which, the land allotment orders were cancelled against Shri Bangali Ram, were never challenged and thus, having attained finality, the petitioner has no locus to challenge the allotment order which was passed in favour of respondent No.2-Amrati Devi at such a belated stage. Therefore, I do not find any illegality and infirmity with the order dated 28.02.2020 (Annexure-3), passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer, whatsoever warranting interference therein. 13. As an upshot of the discussion made hereinabove, the instant writ petition is dismissed. Stay application is also rejected. 14. All pending applications also stand disposed of. 15. No order as to costs.