JUDGMENT : Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J: 1. By way of this appeal, the appellant (writ petitioner) has challenged the judgment dated 22.01.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Hon’ble Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.282/1997 (Resham Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan), dismissing the writ petition of the appellant, preferred against the order dated 07.01.1991 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Raisinghnagar; judgment dated 22.04.1992 passed by the learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Sriganganagar and; the judgment dated 30.12.1996 passed by the learned Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer. 2. The bone of contention in the present case is 25 bighas of command area land comprising Kila Nos. 4 to 7 in Murraba No.198/372, Chak 2NZPD, Tehsil Sri Vijay Nagar, District Sri Ganganagar. As reflected from the record, the appellant’s claim for allotment of such land was rejected by the learned Revenue Authorities below. The challenge in the present case is also regarding the allotment of such land, as is made in favour of the respondent no.5 (since deceased, represented through his LRs herein), in phased manner i.e., on 26.11.1975 and 22.12.1976. 2.1. As per the appellant herein, the impugned action of refusal of allotment in question in favour of the appellant by the Allotting Authority concerned is violative of Rule 4(3), 4(4) & Rule 13(5)(b) of the Rajasthan Colonisation (Allotment & Sale of Government Land in the Indira Gandhi Colony Area) Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules of 1975’); so far as allotment in question made in favour of the respondent No.5 is concerned, the same, as alleged, has been done in violation of Rule 9 of the Rules of 1975. 2.2. As per the claim of the appellant (writ petitioner), since the year 1966, the land comprising Murraba Nos.198/371 & 198/372 total measuring 44 bighas was under temporary cultivatory possession of the appellant‘s father. It has been further claimed at the time when the Rajasthan Colonisation (Allotment of Government Land to Post 1955 Temporary Cultivation Lease Holders & Other Landless Persons in Rajasthan Canal Colony Area) Rules, 1971 were in force, the appellant’s father applied and was allotted 19 bighas of land vide order dated 02.11.1972. Even when the remaining 25 bighas (out of 44 bighas of land) were ordered to be vested in the Government, the appellant’s father continued to be in possession of the entire land. 2.2.1. Even when the remaining 25 bighas (out of 44 bighas of land) were ordered to be vested in the Government, the appellant’s father continued to be in possession of the entire land. 2.2.1. Although the Rules of 1971 were declared as ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution of India by the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jaila Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1975 SC 1436 , the allotment of land made in favour of the appellant’s father remained intact, thereby consequently attained finality. Pursuant to the said verdict, the Rules of 1975, upon being notified in the Official Gazette on 08.08.1975, came into force with effect from the said date itself. 2.3. The appellant also claimed that he being the eldest son of his father, was entitled to the allotment of land as per Rule 4(4) read with Rule 13(5)(b) of the Rules of 1975, which vital aspect, as alleged, has been clearly ignored by the learned Revenue Authorities below prior to passing of the impugned order/judgments, rejecting the claim of the appellant for such allotment. 3. Dr. Ashok Soni, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Aman Soni, Mr. Yash Dadhich & Mr. Romil Bagrecha, appearing on behalf of the appellant (writ petitioner) submitted that prior to making the allotment in question in favour of respondent No.5, compliance of Rule 9 of the Rules of 1975 was not made, as the appellant, being the affected party, was not served with any notice in this regard, nor any such notice was ever published, as mandated by the said provision of law. 3.1. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that in the matter of allotment in question in favour of respondent No.5, prescriptions of Rule 4(4) and Rule 13(5)(b) have been violated, and thus, such allotment is liable to be reviewed and recalled in view of the provision of Rule 4(3) of the Rules of 1975. 3.2. Learned Senior Counsel also submitted that before making the allotment in question in favour of respondent No.5, the appellant despite being the affected party, was kept in dark in this regard, inasmuch as being reflected from the order dated 30.03.1982 (Annex.-2 to the writ petition). 3.2. Learned Senior Counsel also submitted that before making the allotment in question in favour of respondent No.5, the appellant despite being the affected party, was kept in dark in this regard, inasmuch as being reflected from the order dated 30.03.1982 (Annex.-2 to the writ petition). On the one hand, the application of the appellant was kept pending for want of Government’s decision or Guidelines as to the position of Rule 13(5)(b) of the Rules of 1975, while on the other hand, the allotment in question was accorded in favour of the respondent No.5, which in the given circumstances, is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 3.3. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that while making adjudication of the writ petition, preferred against the aforesaid order/judgments impugned therein, the learned Single Judge of this Hon’ble Court has failed to consider that contention of the appellant (writ petitioner) qua violations of the provisions of Rules 4(3), 4(4) & 9 of the Rules of 1975, goes to the root of matter being question of law. Thus, the learned Single Judge while passing the impugned order erred in observing that the said contention was not worthy of acceptance on the ground that the same was raised for the first time in the writ petition and was never raised before the learned Revenue Authorities below. 3.3.1. In this regard, learned Senior Counsel submitted that the argument which goes to the root of the matter and has much bearing on the effective and proper adjudication of the matter, one way or the other, can be allowed to be raised for the first time, or even at any stage of the litigation, in the writ of certiorari, like the present case. 4. On the other hand, Mr. J.L. Purohit, learned Senior assisted by Mr. Shashank Joshi appearing on behalf of the respondent No.5 (since deceased, represented through his LRs herein), while opposing the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the appellant (writ petitioner) submitted that the allotment in question made in favour of respondent No.5 was made after following due procedure prescribed in the Rules of 1975, and such allotment was not challenged by the appellant or any other person. 4.1. 4.1. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that appellant is seeking allotment of land, which already duly and lawfully stood allotted in favour of the respondent No.5, and thus, the claim of the appellant for the land, which is no longer available for allotment. 4.2. Learned Senior Counsel also submitted that the learned Single Judge of this Hon’ble Court, while making adjudication of the writ petition preferred against the aforesaid order/judgments of the learned Revenue Authorities below, has rightly declined to accept the contention of the appellant in regard to the alleged violations of the provisions of the Rules of 1975, inasmuch as no such intention of the Rule-making authority is manifest so as give such Rules or any provision a retrospective effect, more particularly, when such argument of the appellant, as is apparent on the face of the record, was purely a question of fact only. 4.3. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the averment of the appellant in regard to violation of Rule 9 of the Rules of 1975, pertaining to the non-issuance of the notice or publication of the notice, prior to making of the allotment in question in favour of respondent No.5 is also a question of fact, and not of law, as claimed by the appellant. 4.3.1. In view of this, as per learned Senior Counsel, such contention when not raised before the learned Revenue Authorities below by the appellant, cannot be permitted to be raised directly in the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as if it is so done, that too, at this belated stage, the same would result into grave prejudice and injustice to the respondent No.5, who has been allotted the land after following the due procedure of law. 4.4. In support of such submissions, learned Senior Counsel relied upon the following judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court: (a) Shambhu Dayal Vs. State of U.P., (1979) 1 SCC 202 ; (b) T.R. Kapur & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors., AIR 1987 SC 415 ; (c) Chairman, Railway Board & Ors. Vs. C.R. Rangadhamaiah & Ors. etc. etc., (1997) 6 SCC 623 ; and (d) Government of India & Ors. Vs. Indian Tobacco Association, (2005) 7 SCC 396 . 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case, alongwith the judgments cited at the Bar. 6. Vs. C.R. Rangadhamaiah & Ors. etc. etc., (1997) 6 SCC 623 ; and (d) Government of India & Ors. Vs. Indian Tobacco Association, (2005) 7 SCC 396 . 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case, alongwith the judgments cited at the Bar. 6. This Court observes that the bone of contention in the present case is the allotment of 19 bighas of land made in favour of the father of the appellant, which was in his possession. Apart from this allotment, 25 bighas of more land was in possession of the appellant, which was to be resumed. In the meanwhile, incidentally, Rajasthan Colonisation (Allotment of Government Land to Post 1955 Temporary Cultivation Lease Holders & Other Landless Persons in Rajasthan Canal Colony Area) Rules, 1971 were struck down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jaila Singh (supra), and the Rules of 1975 came into being. The land accordingly, was allotted to respondent No.5, and thus, the bone of contention arose between both the parties. 7. The appellant contested the allotment of the revenue land, however, his application dated 22.11.1976 was turned down on 07.01.1991; the appeal was made against the same, before the Revenue Appellate Authority, which was dismissed on 22.04.1992; the revision against the said order was dismissed on 30.12.1996; the learned Single Judge of this Hon’ble Court also dismissed the writ petition which was preferred against the said orders, vide order dated 22.01.2008. Thus, there are four consecutive orders against the present appellant. 8. The case of the appellant is that the allotment made in favour of the respondent was not in accordance with the Rules of 1975. Furthermore, the appellant’s 44 bighas of land was totally covered under the temporary cultivation of his father since 1966, and thus, the Rajasthan Colonisation (Allotment of Government Land to Post 1955 Temporary Cultivation Lease Holders & Other Landless Persons in Rajasthan Canal Colony Area) Rules, 1971, under which his father was allotted 19 bighas of land on 02.11.1972, was correct and once it was prospective in nature then despite the said Rules having been struck down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, such allotment remained undisturbed, then being the eldest son of his father, he was entitled for the allotment as per Rules 4 (4) & 13(5)(b) of the Rules of 1975, which came in vogue later on. The petitioner has also alleged non-compliance of Rule 9 of the Rules of 1975. 9. As against this, the case of the respondents is that the allotment in question made in favour of the respondent No.5 is in accordance with the Rules of 1975 and there is no irregularity which has been pointed out therein, and even the deviation from Rules 4 (4), 13(5)(b) & 9 of the Rules of 1975 was not raised before the revenue authorities below. The 25 bighas of land was vested in the government and was liable to be surrendered and allotted, and thus, there cannot be a dispute regarding the same. 10. This Court observes that the learned Single Judge of this Hon’ble Court has gone into the details of the merits of the case and has arrived at a conclusion that the deviation from Rules, particularly, Rules 4 (4) & 13(5)(b) of the Rules of 1975, as claimed to have been violated, were not raised before the learned revenue authorities below, and moreover, the substitution of Rule 4(4) of the Rules of 1975 was only w.e.f. 01.06.1977, where sub clause (b) of sub rule (5) of Rule 13 was substituted w.e.f. 21.12.1978, and there was no retrospective operation of the said Rules. The allotments made in favour of respondent No.5 on 29.11.1975 and 28.06.1976 were prior to such Rules coming into vogue. 11. This Court also observes that the learned Single Judge of this Hon’ble Court has also come to the conclusion that the three consecutive orders passed by the learned revenue authorities below cannot be castigated as a bad law and suffering from any error apparent on the face of record, on something which was not urged before the said authorities either on the question of fact or law. 12. In light of the aforesaid observations, this Court does not find it a fit case so as to grant any relief to the appellant in the instant appeal. 13. Consequently, the present appeal is dismissed, while upholding the impugned order dated 22.01.2008. All pending applications stand disposed of.