JUDGMENT : PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, J. 1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs: “The petitioners, therefore, pray that: (a) an appropriate writ, order or direction be issued quashing the Order passed by the Board of Revenue dated 25.06.97 (Annexure-6). (b) any other appropriate writ, order or direction that may be deemed expedient for the ends of justice, may be issued. (c) cost be awarded to the petitioner.” 2. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned counsel for the petitioners, are that the petitioner’s father Shri Khub Ram was a temporary tenant in Khasra Nos. 73, 74 and 77 (Village Shyamgarh, Tehsil Raisinghnagar, District Sri Ganganagar), measuring 44 Bighas 5 Biswas. After incorporation, with retrospective effect of Section 15 in the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 1955’) the land in question was permanently allotted to the petitioner’s father Shri Khub Ram on 29.04.1972. The said allotment however, was cancelled by the Assistant Commissioner, Colonisation on 24.02.1981, aggrieved whereby, the petitioner’s father Shri Khub Ram preferred a writ petition before this Hon’ble Court, but the same was dismissed. 2.1. Thereafter, the State Legislature incorporated Section 15AAA vide Rajasthan Tenancy (Amendment) Act No. 11 of 1983 published in the Rajasthan Gazette; subsequently, the petitioner’s father Shri Khub Ram filed an application under Section 15AAA of the Act of 1955 before the Deputy Commissioner, Colonisation, Bijeynagar, whereafter the said Colonisation Department was wound up, and the functions thereof were ordered to be discharged by the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO), Raisinghnagar. 2.2. Subsequently, Shri Khub Ram (petitioners’ father) died on 31.12.1989, and the petitioners (legal representatives herein) approached the learned SDO for substitution being successors of Late Khub Ram, which was accordingly done. The learned SDO vide order dated 18.02.1991 allowed the petitioners’ application and gave khatedari rights to the petitioners, in relation to the land in question. Thereafter, the Additional Collector (Administration), Sri Ganganagar made a reference vide order dated 22.11.1996 under Section 232 of the Act of 1955 to the learned Board of Revenue (BoR) for Rajasthan, Ajmer, against the order dated 18.02.1991; whereupon, the learned BoR vide the impugned order dated 25.06.1997, while accepting the said reference, quashed and set aside the order dated 18.02.1991 passed by the learned SDO. Hence, the present petition has been preferred claiming the afore-quoted reliefs. Hence, the present petition has been preferred claiming the afore-quoted reliefs. 3. Mr. J.L. Purohit, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Shashank Joshi, on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that the learned SDO in the aforementioned order dated 18.02.1991 clearly recorded that the application under Section 15AAA of the Act of 1955 was not available on the official record, but the same was filed by the petitioners. It was further submitted that the petitioners’ application was pending since 1984 and it was decided only in the year 1991; therefore, as per learned Senior Counsel, in such factual matrix, the impugned order passed by the learned BoR is not justified in law. 3.1. Learned Senior Counsel also submitted that mere non-production of the record by the Colonisation Department, in relation to the application under Section 15 AAA of the Act of 1955 cannot become a basis for holding that no such application was pending. Thus, on that count also, the impugned order passed by the learned BoR is not sustainable in the eye of law. 3.2. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the learned SDO in its order clearly observed that declaration of the khatedari rights in favour of the petitioners was not hit by any of the provisions of ceiling law, and the learned BoR even did not dealt with the argument made in that regard before it, prior to passing the impugned order. Thus, as per learned Senior Counsel, the impugned order is not justified in law. 3.3. Learned Senior Counsel also submitted that the issue as to whether the land in question is within the ceiling limits or not, is to be decided by the concerned authorities under the provisions of the Section 30(A) to (E) of the Act of 1955, for the period between 01.04.1966 and 31.12.1972; and for the period after 01.01.1973, the said issue is to be decided under the provisions of the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973. 3.4. In support of such submissions, learned counsel relied upon the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court in the case of Jassuram vs. State of Rajasthan (Civil Writ Petition No. 556 of 1961, decided alongwith other connected matter, on 18.07.1962). 4. 3.4. In support of such submissions, learned counsel relied upon the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court in the case of Jassuram vs. State of Rajasthan (Civil Writ Petition No. 556 of 1961, decided alongwith other connected matter, on 18.07.1962). 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that there was no application pending under Section 15AAA of the Act of 1955 and non-receipt of any such application under the said provision of law was also recorded in the order passed by the learned SDO. Therefore, as per learned counsel, the impugned order passed by the learned BoR is justified in law. 4.1. It was further submitted that the earlier allotment of the land in question to the petitioners was cancelled through enquriy under Section 11(14) of the Rajasthan Colonisation Act and therefore, in order to obtain khatedari before 31.12.1987, the petitioners ought to have applied fresh, but they failed to do so. 4.2. It was also submitted that the petitioners were not entitled for any khatedari rights, and thus, on that count also, the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality so as to warrant any interference by this Court in the present petition. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case alongwith the judgment cited at the Bar. 6. This Court observes that after insertion of Section 15AAA in the Act of 1955, the petitioners filed an application under the said Section before the Deputy Commissioner Colonisation, Bijeynagar, whereafter the said Colonisation Department was wound up and the function thereof were ordered to be discharged by the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO) Raisinghnagar. The learned SDO vide order dated 18.02.1991 allowed the said application, as mentioned above. Thereafter, the learned Additional Collector made a reference vide order dated 22.11.1996 before the learned BoR against the order dated 18.02.1991. The learned BoR vide the impugned order, while accepting the said reference, quashed and set aside the order dated 18.02.1991, whereby khatedari rights, in respect of the land in question, were granted to the petitioners. 7. Thereafter, the learned Additional Collector made a reference vide order dated 22.11.1996 before the learned BoR against the order dated 18.02.1991. The learned BoR vide the impugned order, while accepting the said reference, quashed and set aside the order dated 18.02.1991, whereby khatedari rights, in respect of the land in question, were granted to the petitioners. 7. This Court further observes that the petitioners filed a writ petition (S.B.C.W.P. No. 2704/85) before this Hon’ble Court, which was dismissed vide order dated 19.12.1985; the said order reads as under: “The petitioner in the writ petition has stated that his application u/s 15-AAA(3) of Raj. Tenancy Act is pending before the Dy. Comm. Colonisation Sri Vijaynagar. It is expected that Dy. Commissioner Colonisation, Sri Vijaynagar will decide the application of the petitioner in relation to chak No. 1 IWM Sware No. 218/346, 218/345, as expeditiously as possible. With these observations this writ petition is dismissed.” 8. This Court also observes that the learned SDO in the order dated 18.02.1991 clearly stated that nothing was found in the official record regarding pendency of the application under Section 15AAA of the Act of 1955. 9. This Court also observes that the earlier allotment was cancelled by the Assistant Commissioner, Colonisation on 24.02.1981 and thereafter as per the aforesaid order of this Hon’ble Court, there was no pending application under Section 15AAA of the Act of 1955. 10. This Court further observes that after passing of the order under the Section 15 AAA of the Act of 1955 by the learned SDO, the total land was ad-measuring almost 81 Bighas of command land, and that, grant of rights pertaining to such land is not permissible, as per the ceiling law. 11. This Court also observes that the Additional Collector has rightly made reference and the same was rightly accepted by the learned BoR vide the impugned order, and thus, the said impugned order does not call for any interference by this Court in the present petition. is justify in eye of law and does not called any interference. 12. The judgment cited on behalf of the petitioners also does not render any assistance to their case. 13. is justify in eye of law and does not called any interference. 12. The judgment cited on behalf of the petitioners also does not render any assistance to their case. 13. Thus, in light of the aforesaid observations and looking into the factual matrix of the present case, this Court does not find it a fit case so as to grant any relief to the petitioners in the present petition. 14. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of.