JUDGMENT : 1. Though the matter is listed under ‘Orders’ Category but on the request of the learned counsels for both the parties, the matter is finally heard today itself. 2. The instant writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, claiming following reliefs: “It is therefore, prayed that the present writ petition may kindly be allowed by an appropriate writ, order or direction: A. The orders dated 15.07.1976 (Annexure-2) passed by the Dy. Commissioner, Colonization, Vijaynagar, Sri Ganganagar, order dated 16.08.1996 (Annexure-4) passed by RAA Sri Ganga-Nagar and order dated 13.02.2001 (Annexure-5) passed by Revenue Board, Ajmer may kindly quash and set aside. B. That order dated 13.02.2001 (Annexure-5) passed by revenue board, Ajmer may kindly quash and set aside. C. Any other appropriate order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case, may kindly be passed in favor of the petitioner; and D. Cost of this writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioner.” 3. The factual matrix of the case is that the petitioners father vide allotment order dated 21.08.1965 (Annexure-1) passed by Dy. Colonization Officer, Bikaner was alloted 25 Bighas of agricultural land in Chak 16 APD Tehsil Anoopgarh, Murraba No. 262/391 and upon the complaint filed by some private person, the allotment of land was cancelled vide order dated 15.07.1976 (Annexure-2) passed by Respondent No. 4, under Section 11 (14) of the Rajasthan Colonization Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act 1954’). 4. The petitioner approached the Board of Revenue, Respondent No. 1, against the cancellation of the allotment and after which the Respondent No. 1 remanded the matter back to the Deputy Commissioner, Respondent No. 4, and directed the Respondent No. 4 to carry out inspection and pass an order, thereafter, an order dated 15.07.1976 was passed Deputy Commissioner, Colonization, Respondent No. 4. 5. The petitioners father was discharged from the concerned trial court vide order dated 03.05.1978 (Annexure-3) and thereafter, the respondent authorities allotted the land in question to one Sh. Munshiram. 6. The petitioner thereafter, challenged the order dated 15.07.1976 passed by Respondent No. 4, before Revenue Appellate Authority, Sri Ganganagar Respondent No. 2, vide Appeal No. 295/1991, which was dismissed vide order dated 16.08.1996 (Annexure-4) by Respondent No. 2. 7. Munshiram. 6. The petitioner thereafter, challenged the order dated 15.07.1976 passed by Respondent No. 4, before Revenue Appellate Authority, Sri Ganganagar Respondent No. 2, vide Appeal No. 295/1991, which was dismissed vide order dated 16.08.1996 (Annexure-4) by Respondent No. 2. 7. The petitioners thereafter, aggrieved by the order dated 16.08.1996 passed by Respondent No. 2, preferred an appeal vide Appeal No. Appeal/LR/147/96 before Board of Revenue, Respondent No. 1, which was also dismissed vide order dated 13.02.2001 (Annexure-5). 8. The petitioners earlier preferred the writ petition SBCWP 2366/2019 before this Court and same was dismissed vide order dated 08.07.2019 (Annexure-7) on the ground that the petitioners have no right to remain in posession of the disputed land, which is reproduced hereunder: “By way of this writ petition, the petitioners-legal representatives of deceased Kalasingh, have questioned the legality of order dated 19.7.18 passed by the Board of Revenue, whereby the appeal preferred by him against the order dated30.1.06 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority (RAA), Sriganganagar, has been dismissed. By order dated 30.1.06, RAA has dismissed the appeal preferred by Kalasingh against the order dated 30.9.80 issued by the Allotting Authority, allotting the land measuring 22 bighas comprising Murabba No.262/391 Kila No. 1to 22 of Chak No.16 APD. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended thatt he allotment made in favour of the respondent No.4 ignoring the fact that the petitioners were in occupation of the land in question on the strength of the allotment made in favour of their father, is ex-facie illegal. Learned counsel submitted that the allotment order was issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Colonization infavour of the respondent No.4 without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners who were in occupation of the land and thus, the allotment made being violative of principles of natural justice, deserves to be set aside for this reason alone. Indisputably, the allotment made in favour of Kalasingh, father of the petitioners, was cancelled by the competent authority vide order dated 21.2.76, the legality whereof was not challenged by him by availing the appropriate remedy and the same attained finality. Indisputably, the allotment made in favour of Kalasingh, father of the petitioners, was cancelled by the competent authority vide order dated 21.2.76, the legality whereof was not challenged by him by availing the appropriate remedy and the same attained finality. Obviously, after cancellation of the allotment, the petitioners were in unauthorized occupation of the land and therefore, proceedings were initiated by the Tehsildar under Section 183 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (“the Act”) for eviction and vide order dated 20.10.03 passed therein, the petitioners were directed to be evicted from the disputed land. The appeal preferred by the father of the petitioners against the said order was dismissed by the Appellate Authority and aggrieved thereby, the revision petition preferred was also dismissed by the Board of Revenue and thus, the order evicting the petitioners from the disputed land has attained finality. In this view of the matter, the petitioners have no right whatsoever to remain in possession of the disputed land. For the aforementioned reasons, in the considered opinion of this Court, the order impugned passed by the Board of Revenue declining the relief to the petitioners as prayed for, does not suffer from any jurisdictional error so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.” 9. The petitioners had preferred the application under Section 212 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1955’) before SDO, Anoopgarh, wherein the SDO vide order dated 25.01.2021 (Annexure-10) had allowed temporary injunction application in favour of the applicants-petitioners and also directed to not dispossess the petitioners without adopting due legal process. 10. Hence, being aggrieved by the orders dated 15.07.1976 (Annexure-2) passed by Respondent No. 4, 16.08.1996 (Annexure-4) passed by Respondent No. 2 and 13.02.2001 (Annexure-5) passed by Respondent No. 1 has preferred the instant writ petition. 11. The learned counsel for the respondents while raising preliminary objections submitted that the petitioners secured the allotment by means of stating the wrong facts and documents and hence, the land allotment was cancelled by Respondent No. 4 vide order dated 15.07.1976 (Annexure-2). 12. 11. The learned counsel for the respondents while raising preliminary objections submitted that the petitioners secured the allotment by means of stating the wrong facts and documents and hence, the land allotment was cancelled by Respondent No. 4 vide order dated 15.07.1976 (Annexure-2). 12. The learned counsel for the respondent while raising preliminary objections further submitted that the petitioners pursued an appeal before Board of Revenue, Ajmer, which was subsequently adjudicated and dismissed vide order dated 13.02.2001 (Annexure-5) and after which the petitioners maintained a state of inaction, refraining from pursuing any further legal avenues, therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed on this account of delay and laches. 13. The learned counsel for the respondent while raising preliminary objections also submitted that after the cancellation of the land by Respondent No. 4 vide order dated 15.07.1976 (Annexure-2), the allotting authority made the allotment of the land in dispute Chak 16 APD Murba no. 262/391 Killa no. 1 to 22 rakba 22 bigha, to Munshiram S/o Nenuram vide order dated 30.09.1980 and further Munshiram deposited entire amount on 31.03.2006 and thereafter, the petitioners challenged the order of the allotment made in favour of Munshiram before the Revenue Appellate Authority by Appeal no. 117/2004, i.e; after 22 years, and appeal vide order dated 30.01.2006 was dismissed on the ground of delay of 22 years. The learned Counsel for the respondent while raising preliminary objections further submitted that thereafter, the petitioner challenged the order of the Revenue Appellate Authority before the Board of Revenue, Ajmer and the Board of Revenue, Ajmer after hearing the parties and considering the material available on the record, dismissed the appeal vide order dated 19.07.2018 and confirmed the order of the allotment made in favour of Munshiram. The learned counsel for the respondents while raising preliminary objections also submitted that thereafter, the LRs. The learned counsel for the respondents while raising preliminary objections also submitted that thereafter, the LRs. of petitioners challenged the order of Board of Revenue, Ajmer before the Jaipur bench of the this Court in SBCWP 19796/2018 and it was dismissed with liberty to file fresh writ petition before Principal seat Jodhpur and thereafter, SBCWP No. 2366/2019 was filed before this Court which was dismissed on 08.07.2019 (Annexure7) and also SAW had been filed by the present petitioners before this Court bearing SAW 1161/19 and which is still pending before this Court, and all these facts have been concealed by the petitioner with malafide intention and to mislead this Hon’ble Court. 14. The learned counsel for the respondents while raising preliminary objections also submitted that the land in dispute Rakba 22 Bigha out of 25 Bigha had already been allotted to Munshiram vide order dated 30.09.1980 and thereafter, khatedari rights along with possession had also been given to Munshiram dated 01.03.2019 and Munshiram is necessary party to the writ petition but the petitioners intentionally did not implead the subsequent allottee and khatedar Munshiram as a party to the writ petition and therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of non joinder of the necessary party. 15. The learned counsel for the respondent while raising preliminary objection further submitted that the petitioners filed the suit with application for temporary injunction before the SDO Anoopgarh, after dismissal of the SBCWP No. 2366/19 vide order dated 08.07.2019 and concealed a very important fact that a Writ Petition filed by the petitioners was dismissed vide order dated 08.07.2019 (Annexure-7) and stay order was granted in their favour vide order dated 25.01.2021 but after service of the notices in this writ petition upon the SDO Anupgarh, the stay application was dismissed vide order dated 23.07.2021 as per the finding of this Court dated 08.07.2019 and thus, the petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. 16. 16. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that : (A) the respondent authority had alloted the land in favour of the father of petitioners in 1965 and it was upon the fake complaint made by some private person, upon which the land allotment was cancelled and thereafter, the trial court vide order dated 08.08.1976 discharged the petitioners father from the allegations levelled and hence the order dated 15.07.1976 (Annexure-2) is liable to be quashed. (B) when the father of the petitioners was alive, the parchi barabandi was issued by the concerned authority in the name of petitioners father. The petitioners also have that document along with the certificate issued by concerned Gram Panchayat which showed that the petitioners had the possession of the land in question since the allotment was made in favour of the petitioners father and also had inspection report which shows that the petitioners are tenant in the Chak 16 APD P. No. 262/391 Murraba No. 4. The inspection report also mentions that the petitioners are still in possession of 5.566 hectares command agriculture land and the petitioners are the agriculturists. (C) the Respondent No. 2, decided appeal against the one of the applicants who was allotted the land in question along with the petitioners father and thereafter, the applicant Sardar Singh was allotted 25 bighas of land and against Sardar Singh also, the vague complaint was filed, wherein he was also discharged by the concerned trial court. The Board of Revenue had allowed the appeal and directed to concerned court to confirm the order dated 05.07.1976 to the extent of petitioners, and the case of the sardar singh not disguised to the petitioner father however appellant authority on the same account the petitioners father appeal was dismissed without application of mind the although aspects of the case are not consider by the RAA and revenue board therefore orders impugned deserve to be quash and set aside. (D) the fact that the petitioners were in possession of the land since 1965 is clearly mentioned in the Patwari report, however, due to lack of knowledge, there has been delay in filing this writ petition and therefore, this Court may condone the delay. 17. (D) the fact that the petitioners were in possession of the land since 1965 is clearly mentioned in the Patwari report, however, due to lack of knowledge, there has been delay in filing this writ petition and therefore, this Court may condone the delay. 17. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that: (A) the order dated 15.07.1976 (Annexure-2) passed by Respondent No. 4, was passed after consideration of the facts of the case, material available on record and law applicable in this matter and after making proper inquiry as per direction of the Board of Revenue, Ajmer, and the Appeals preferred by the petitioners was also dismissed by the Revenue Appellate Authority vide order dated 16.08.1996 (Annexure-4) and Board of Revenue vide order dated 13.02.2001 (Annexure-5) and hence the petition is liable to be dismissed. 18. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the material available on record. 19. This Court finds that the Respondent No.4 cancelled the allotment of land of the petitioner vide order dated 15.07.1976 (Annexure-2), against which the petitioner preferred an appeal in Appeal No.294/91 before Revenue Appellate Authority, Respondent No. 2, in the year 1991 and there has been no prudent reason assigned for the delay of 15 years. 20. This Court further observes that the Respondent No.2, while rejecting the appeal vide order dated 16.08.1996 (Annexure-4) has stated that the petitioner obtained the allotment by producing wrong documents to the alloting authorities and hence the allotment cancelled by Respondent No.4 vide order dated 15.07.1976 (Annexure-2) was valid and in accordance with law. The relevant portion of the order dated 16.08.1996 (Annexure-4) passed by Respondent No.2 is reproduced hereunder: ^^mijksDr focspu vuqlkj ;g Lo"V gS fd dkykflag iq= dkuflag ds uke ls tks vkoaVu fd;k x;k gS ml vkoaVu gsrq tks ifjp; izek.ko= is'k fd;k x;k Fkk og bl vihy ds vchykaV dk ugha gS ftlls ;g rF; jktLo vihy izkf/kd"V gS fd mDr vkoaVu vchykaV }kjk fdlh vU; dkykflag uked Jhxaxkuxj O;fDr dk mi;ksx djds djok;k x;k gS vr% ,sls vkoaVu dks mifuos'ku vf/kŒ dh /kkjk 11@14 ds rgr fujLr fd;s tkus esa dksbZ =qfV izrhr ugha gksrh gS vr% mDrkuqlkj vihy vihykaV[kkfjt dh tkrh gSA vkns'k vkt fnukad 16@08@96 dks esjs }kjk fy[kok;k tkdj [kqys U;k;ky; esa lquk;k x;kA^^ 21. This Court also observes that the Respondent No.1 while dismissing the appeal vide order dated 13.02.2001 (Annexure-5) has held as below: ^^8- ;g lgh gS fd fookfnr vkjkth dk vkoaVu 07-08-65 dh vihykFkhZ dks fd;k x;k Fkk] ijUrq ;g vkoaVu 21-02-76 dks fujLr fd;k x;k FkkA gkykafd vihykFkhZ dh Hkwfe vkoafVr gq, dkQh le; gks x;k gS] ijUr ;g fopkj.kh; gS fd f'kdk;r ds mijkUr gj ckj tkap esa ;g fu"d"kZ fudkyk fd vihykFkhZ }kjk xyr c;kuh djds fdlh vU; O;fDr ds fjQwth izek.k i= ds vk/kkj ij Hkwfe vkoafVr djkbZ xbZ FkhA vihykFkhZ dk izdj.k nks ckj jktLo e.My }kjk tk¡p ,oa iqu% fu.kZ; gsrq izfrizsf"kr fd;k x;kA iqu% tk¡p ,oa fu.kZ; esa Hkh ;g fu"d"kZ fudkyk fd vihykFkhZ dk vkoavu lgh vk/kkj ij fujLr fd;k x;k Fkk A tihykFkhZ brus volj feyus ds ckn Hkh ;g lkfcr ugha dj ik;k fd mlds }kjk Hkwfe dk vkoaVu lgh rF; izLrqr djds djok;k x;k Fkk ,oa uk gh os ;g lkfcr dj ik;k gS fd tkap ds nkSjku ik;s x;s rF; xyr gSA tihykFkhZ ds i{k esa dksbZ ,slk rF; ugha gS] ftlls mldks ykHk fey ldrk gks ,oa ;g Hkh Li"V gS fd izkFkhZ }kjk xyr rF;ksa ds vk/kkj ij vkoaVu djok;k x;k ,oa tiykUV dks fofnr jkth dk vkoaVu fdlh rduhdh dkj.k ls fujLr ugha fd;k x;k gS] rks ,sls ekeys esa izkFkhZ dks dbZ lky iwoZ gq, vkoaVu ,oa dCtsdkjr dk YkkHk nsuk mfpr izrhr ugha gksrk gSA vfHkHkk"kd vihykUV }kjk izLrqr uthjksa ds rF; bl ekeys ds rF; gS Hkh fHkUu gSA vr% budk ykHk Hkh vihykUV dks ugha fey ldrkA 9- blds QyLoYi vihy vihykUV Lohdkj fd, tkus ;ksX; ugha ik;s tkus ds dkj.k fujLr dh tkrh gS ,oa v/khuLFk U;k;ky;ksa ds fu.kZ; ;Fkkor j[ks tkrs gSaA 10- fu.kZ; [kqys U;k;ky; esa lquk;k x;kA^^ And while dismissing the appeal, the Respondent No. 1 stated that the petitioner has obtained the allotment of land after submitting wrong documents and this Court also observes that the petitioner has not disputed this fact in his pleadings. 22. 22. This Court also observes that the petitioner has failed to proffer cogent evidence substantiating any impropriety in the impugned orders dated 15.07.1976 (Annexure-2) passed by Respondent No. 4, 16.08.1996 (Annexure-4) passed by Respondent No. 2 and 13.02.2001 (Annexure-5) passed by Respondent No. 1 and furthermore, the petitioner has also failed to adequately proffer a rationale behind the protracted delay of 15 years in preferring the appeal before Respondent No.2 after the allotment of land was cancelled by Respondent No.4 vide order dated 15.07.1976 (Annexure-2) and the absence of a reasonable elucidation for such a protracted temporal lapse further attenuates the petitioner’s case. 23. This Court further observes that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that aforementioned impugned orders suffer from any infirmity, illegality or perversity warranting interferance in the supervisory writ jurisdiction of this Court and thus, this Court discerns no justifiable cause to grant redress to the petitioner. 24. Consequently, the writ petition fails and is dismissed as being devoid of merit. Stay or other applications, if any, shall also stand dismissed. 25. No order as to costs.