ORDER : Vinit Kumar Mathur, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 01.07.2013 passed by the Additional Commissioner Colonization (Vigilance), Bikaner, whereby, the application preferred by the petitioners under Rule 22 (3) of the Rajasthan Colonization (Allotment and Sale of the Government Land in Indira Gandhi Canal Project) Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules of 1975’) was rejected. 3. Briefly noted the facts in the present writ petition are that the private respondents were having a khatedari land in Tehsil Pugal, District Bikaner. The land of the private respondents was acquired by the State Government and in view of the acquisition of the land, vide allotment order dated 18.05.2001, the private respondents were allotted a land in Bajju, Tehsil Kolayat, District Bikaner on an application preferred by them before the Additional Commissioner, Colonization, IGNP, Chhattargarh, Bikaner. 4. The petitioners, who are the residents of Bajju, have assailed the allotment of the land to the private respondents by way of filing an application under Rule 22 (3) of the Rules of 1975 before the Additional Commissioner Colonization (Vigilance), Bikaner. The application preferred by the petitioners was considered and the same was rejected by the Additional Commissioner Colonization (Vigilance), Bikaner vide order dated 01.07.2013. The order dated 01.07.2013 was challenged by the petitioners before the Board of Revenue by way of filing a revision petition and the Board of Revenue vide its order dated 12.04.2024 has rejected the same. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently submits that the application for cancellation of the allotment filed by the petitioners has wrongly been rejected without considering the correct legal and factual position. He further submits that the learned Additional Commissioner Colonization (Vigilance), Bikaner has rejected the application on the ground that the private respondents have been allotted the land as per the notification dated 04.10.1999/29.03.2001. He also submits that the notification dated 04.10.1999/29.03.2001 is not in existence and the same has not been placed on record by any of the parties before any of the authorities below. He further submits that the reliance placed by learned Additional Commissioner Colonization (Vigilance), Bikaner on the notification dated 04.10.1999/29.03.2001 is misplaced. 6. He also submits that the notification dated 04.10.1999/29.03.2001 is not in existence and the same has not been placed on record by any of the parties before any of the authorities below. He further submits that the reliance placed by learned Additional Commissioner Colonization (Vigilance), Bikaner on the notification dated 04.10.1999/29.03.2001 is misplaced. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the Additional Commissioner Colonization (Vigilance), Bikaner has also held that the allotment order passed in favour of the private respondents can be challenged only before the State Government or before the High Court by way of filing an appeal or revision and therefore, the Additional Commissioner Colonization (Vigilance), Bikaner is not competent to deal with the matter. He further submits that in the similar lines, the Board of Revenue has also reiterated the findings while rejecting the revision petition filed by the petitioners. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the land which has been allotted to the private respondents is in green belt area and therefore, the same could not have been allotted to them. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition may be allowed and the allotment order made in favour of the private respondents may be quashed and set aside. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the allotment order of the land has correctly been passed by the State Government keeping in mind notification dated 04.10.1999/29.03.2001. Learned counsel has produced before this Court the notification dated 04.10.1999/29.03.2001. Learned counsel further submits that after issuance of the initial notification/order dated 28.08.1998, the lands notified vide notifications/orders dated 04.10.1999 and 29.03.2001 were included for allotment and since the private respondents have complied with all the conditions mentioned in the three notifications/orders dated 28.08.1998, 04.10.1999 and 29.03.2001, therefore, the land has been allotted to them. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that since the khatedari land of the private respondents situated in Tehsil Pugal, District Bikaner was taken over by the respondents Department for creation of Mahajan Field Firing Range, therefore, the private respondents were given liberty to approach the respondent- Colonization Department by way of filing an appropriate application for allotment of land and in pursuance of the same, the private respondents after having fulfilled all the requisite qualifications mentioned in the notifications issued by the respondents, have been allotted the land. He, therefore, submits that the learned Additional Commissioner Colonization has rightly rejected the application preferred by the petitioners under Rule 22 (3) of the Rules of 1975 and the Board of Revenue has also rightly rejected the revision petition filed by the petitioners. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition may be dismissed. 10. I have considered the submissions made at Bar and gone through the relevant record of the case. 11. The admitted facts in the present writ petition show that the land of the private respondents, which was located in Tehsil Pugal, District Bikaner was taken over by the State Government for setting up Mahajan Field Firing Range and therefore, the private respondents were given liberty to file an appropriate application for allotment of the land in pursuance of the notifications/orders issued by the State Government on 28.08.1998, 04.10.1999 and 29.03.2001. The private respondents, in pursuance of the notifications issued by the State Government, filed an appropriate application before the Colonization Department, which was considered and the allotment order was issued in favour of the private respondents on 18.05.2001, whereby, 16.15 bighas of land was allotted to the private respondents. 12. The petitioners being residents of Bajju, Tehsil Kolayat, District Bikaner have filed an application under Rule 22 (3) of the Rules of 1975 for cancellation of the allotment made in favour of the private respondents. The principal ground of the petitioners for cancellation of the allotment is that the land which has been allotted to the private respondents does not reflect in the notification/order dated 28.08.1998. Further, the notification/order dated 04.10.1999 relied upon by the learned Additional Commissioner Colonization does not exist. It is true that the land which has been allotted to the private respondents does not find mention in the notification/order dated 28.08.1998, however, the State Government in furtherance of the notification dated 28.08.1998 had issued notifications/orders on 04.10.1999 and 29.03.2001, by which the land had been allotted to the private respondents, which have been produced before this Court by the learned counsel for the private respondents and the same is taken on record. Therefore, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that the notification/order dated 04.10.1999 is not in existence is noted to be rejected. 13. Therefore, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that the notification/order dated 04.10.1999 is not in existence is noted to be rejected. 13. The second contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the allotment can be cancelled by the State Government or by the High Court is also noted to be rejected on the ground that the Additional Commissioner Colonization has observed in the order dated 01.07.2013 that the allotment order has been issued in favour of the private respondents in pursuance of the notification/order dated 04.10.1999 only and if the same is required to be quashed and set aside, then the petitioners can raise the issue before the State Government or the High Court. 13. The order of the learned Additional Commissioner Colonization is required to be read in whole and not in isolation and therefore, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that the Additional Commissioner Colonization has no jurisdiction to assail the validity of the allotment order made in favour of the private respondents and the same can be challenged before the State Government or the High Court, is not correct. 14. In the considered opinion of this Court, the land was rightly allotted to the private respondents as per the notification/order dated 04.10.1999/29.03.2001, which was and is in existence and the copy thereof has been produced before this Court, which is taken on record. Therefore, no illegality has been committed by the Additional Commissioner Colonization (Vigilance), Bikaner by passing the order dated 01.07.2013. Similarly, learned Board of Revenue has taken note of the contentions raised by the petitioners in revision petition and has rightly dismissed the revision petition filed against the order dated 01.07.2013 after appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case. 15. In view of the discussion made above, there is no infirmity in the order dated 01.07.2013 passed by the Additional Commissioner Colonization as well as in the order dated12.04.2024 passed by the learned Board of Revenue. 16. The writ petition is therefore, devoid of force and the same is hereby dismissed.