KULDIP SINGH, J.

Brij Lal, the appellant, was allotted the land in dispute in the year 1970 on temporary basis. In the year 1974, he applied for permanent allotment of the said land but the application was rejected on the ground that from the photo affixed on the application form, it appeared that he was a minor. The appeal filed by him was dismissed. The Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, in exercise of the revisional powers remanded the case back to the original authority for fresh inquiry and decision in accordance with the Rajasthan Colonisation (Allotment and Sale of Government Land in Rajasthan Canal Colony Area) Rules, 1975, (hereinafter called the Rules), which had been enforced meanwhile

2. On remand the Assistant Colonisation Commissioner, by his order dated January 19, 1976, again rejected the application of the appellant on the ground that at the time when temporary allotment was made to him he was a minor. The appellant had placed on record the date of birth certificate from the Headmaster, Government Primary School, Khanansar, according to which his date of birth was March 18, 1952. In addition, he also filed a certificate of the doctor showing that on the date of temporary allotment of the land, he had attained majority. The Assistant Colonisation Commissioner rejected both the documents and also the application for permanent allotment. The appeal filed by Brij Lal was dismissed by the Additional Colonisation Commissioner by his order dated February 21, 1977. The Additional Colonisation Commissioner came to the conclusion that even if the date of birth of the appellant was taken to be March 18, 1952, since the temporary allotment was made to him in the year 1969, he was minor on the date of the said allotment. The revision petition filed by the appellant before the Board of Revenue of Rajasthan was rejected on January 24, 1980, and thereafter the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed by the High Court on July 13, 1982. This appeal by way of special leave is by Brij Lal against the orders of the court below as upheld by the High Court. This Court, while granting special leave, stayed the dispossession of the appellant

3. As mentioned above, the Board of Revenue of Rajasthan has remanded the case for consideration afresh in accordance with the Rules. It is not disputed that the appellant is a "landless person" under the Rules. It is further not disputed that the appellant was "temporary cultivation leaseholder" and as such he was eligible and entitled to permanent allotment of the land on priority basis under the Rules. On the date when the appellant applied for permanent allotment he was holding the temporary allotment. If the appellant had procured temporary allotment by giving false declaration regarding age then proceedings for cancelling temporary allotment should have been undertaken. The temporary lease of the appellant was never cancelled. The appellant being "temporary cultivation leaseholder", permanent allotment could not be denied to him under the Rules. We are, therefore, of the view that the authorities under the Rules and the High Court fell into patent error in rejecting the claim of the appellant for permanent allotment

4. Even otherwise, there was no justification for the authorities under the Rules to reject the school certificate and the medical certificate. There was not even an iota of evidence on the record to show that the appellant was minor on the date of temporary allotment. After making temporary allotment in favour of the appellant, if it was sought to be cancelled on the ground that the appellant was minor at the time of allotment, then the onus was on the authorities to show that the appellant had made misrepresentation regarding his age. There was no basis at all for the authorities under the Rules to reach the finding that the appellant was minor on the date of the temporary allotment

5. It is not disputed before us that the appellant is in cultivating possession of the land since 1970. It would be travesty of justice to dispossess the appellant from the land which he is nourishing for over a period of two decades

6. We allow the appeal with costs, set aside the judgment of the High Court and also of the authorities under the Rules and direct the authorities under the Rules to make permanent allotment of the land in dispute in favour of the appellant. We quantify the costs at Rs. 10, 000.