JUDGMENT : Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. 1. The instant special appeals have been preferred against the order dated 05.11.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Hon’ble Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petitions No. 3146/1995 & 3147/1995, whereby the said two identical writ petitions preferred by the appellants [writ petitioners-Devi Singh (since deceased represented through LRs herein & Smt. Vinod Kanwar], though arising out of different orders, but being interconnected, were dismissed vide the said common impugned order. 2. Brief facts of the case, as noticed by this Court, are that on 18.12.1978, the appellant-Devi Singh (writ petitioner) was allotted certain land, admeasuring 193 bighas 18 biswas and Hindu Singh (husband of appellant-writ petitioner Smt. Vinod Kanwar) was allotted 118 bighas 1 biswa of land, under the category of landless persons. 3. It was thereafter noticed that the aforesaid persons already had a share in the lands by way of succession and thus, did not fall in the category of landless persons. The Collector, while considering the application submitted by the Sub Divisional Officer in regard to the same, arrived at a finding that the said persons were not landless persons; a finding which was further re-affirmed by the learned Board of Revenue as well as the learned Single Judge of this Hon’ble Court, dismissing the writ petitions of the appellants vide the impugned order dated 05.11.2007. 4. Mr. J.L. Purohit, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Hem Shankar Vyas appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that the proceeding for cancellation of such allotment was wrongly initiated being violative of Rule 17(4) of the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holding Rules, 1973, which required the allotments to be cancelled only on the ground that they have been secured by fraud, against the Rules and on breach of prescribed conditions. 4.1. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that there has been no breach of the prescribed conditions in the present case as a future notional share could not have been considered for cancellation. 4.2. Learned Senior Counsel also submitted that the distribution of property and succession was a matter of future happening and thus, it could not have had an impact of depriving appellants of their lawful right to allotment in the category of landless persons. 4.2. Learned Senior Counsel also submitted that the distribution of property and succession was a matter of future happening and thus, it could not have had an impact of depriving appellants of their lawful right to allotment in the category of landless persons. He has drawn the attention of this Court to Rule 2(iii)(b) of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Land for Agricultural Purposes) Rules, 1970 in which ‘Landless Agriculturist’ has been defined; the said Rule 2(iii)(b) of the Rules of 1970, reads as under: “2(iii)(b) - “Landless Agriculturist” means a resident of Rajasthan who is either a bonafide agriculturist or an agricultural laborers, and is equality or likely to cultivate land personally, and whose main source of livelihood is agriculture or any occupation which is subsidiary or subservient to agriculture, and such person does not hold any tenure land any where in Rajasthan or the area of such land which he holds including any land which has been previously allotted to him, is less than the area prescribed in rule 12.” 4.3. Learned Senior Counsel has also drew the attention of this Court towards sub-section (26A) of Section 5 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955; which reads as follows: “26(A) : “Landless Person” shall mean an agriculturist by profession who cultivates or an reasonably be expected to cultivate land personally but who does not hold any land, whether in his own name or in the name of any member of his joint family, or holds a fragment.” 5. On the other hand, Mr. S.S. Ladrecha, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr. Yogesh Sharma, appearing on behalf of the respondents, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the appellants submitted that once the original basis of the status of landless persons is lost, any orders passed in favour of the State, cannot be undone. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case. 7. This Court has taken note of the fact that the learned Single Judge of this Hon’ble Court has considered the factual matrix of the case and the appellants having a notional share in the property of their father. This Court is of the opinion that the appellants do not fall in the definition “Landless Persons” in either of the laws. 8. This Court is of the opinion that the appellants do not fall in the definition “Landless Persons” in either of the laws. 8. This Court observes that the learned Single Judge of this Hon’ble Court has also dealt with the orders of the Revenue authorities below and has rightly arrived at a conclusion that Narayan Singh (father of deceased-appellant Devi Singh) was having a share of about 197 bighas and thus, the notional share between the sons was bound to follow. 9. In view of the above, the consecutive orders passed by Collector, Board of Revenue and the learned Single Judge of this Hon’ble Court do not call for any interference by this Court in the instant appeals, as no fact has been brought on record by the appellants, so as to persuade this Court to make such interference. 10. Consequently, the present appeals are dismissed . All pending applications stand disposed of.