AR. Lakshmanan, C.J.

1. The present special appeal has been filed by the petitioner appellant against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 11.5.2000, whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.

2. The Collector, Pali issued a notice to the petitioner as to why the allotment made in her favour be not cancelled because she in her application for allotment has not disclosed that there is already existing land in favour of her husband to the tune of 43 bighas 5 biswas land. The said notice was issued to the petitioner. But the petitioner failed to appear pursuant to the notice. The matter was adjudicated ex-parte and the land allotted in favour of the petitioner was cancelled. An appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the Revenue Appellate Authority and the Revenue Appellate Authority observed that the appellant in her application has not disclosed the holding of her husband. Since her husband was having a holding in his name, she cannot be considered to be a landless person. Therefore, she is not entitled to be allotted the land and maintained the order of cancellation of allotment made in her favour. A revision petition was preferred before the Board of Revenue and the Board of Revenue considered the question raised by the petitioner that no notice was served on her and, therefore, the cancellation was bad. She also claimed that she is living separately from her husband and, therefore, the allotment should not be cancelled. The Board of Revenue came to the conclusion that there is nothing on the record to sustain that the petitioner had obtained any divorce to live separately from her husband and this has been further observed by the Board of Revenue that the allotment was obtained by concealing the fact that land is existing in her husbands name. Therefore, it was by misrepresentation that the land was got allotted. She was not entitled as a landless person to get the allotment made in her favour. Learned Member of the Board of Revenue was of the opinion that the Collector and the Revenue Appellate Authority have appreciated the fact rightly and no illegality was committed.

3. It was urged before the learned Single Judge that the notice was not served on the petitioner. The petitioner was having strained relations with her husband and she was living separately. It was also urged before the learned Single Judge that after the acquisition of Khatedari rights and after expiry of a period of 10 years from the date of allotment the allotment could not have been cancelled after a lapse of 30 years and placed reliance on Brij Lai v. Board of Revenue and Ors. reported in : AIR1994SC1128 and also on Pat Ram and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. reported in 1995 (2) DNJ 592. The learned Single Judge after considering the case of the petitioner came to the conclusion that the petitioner is not entitled to get any advantage of the aforesaid judgments for the simple reason that the allotment itself was obtained by her by misrepresentation. The learned Single Judge has held that it is settled proposition of law that anything obtained by misrepresentation or fraud can never be sanctified as making misrepresentation itself amounts to moral turpitude. Learned Single Judge has further observed that anything obtained by misrepresentation or fraud cannot be allowed to be sustained. The learned Single Judge has also said that this Court in its Full Bench decision in Chiman Lal v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1688/1983 vide judgment and order dated 18.2.2000) has considered the aspect of interference in allotment at a very belated stage and held that the revisional powers can be exercised at any time provided (i) the order has been obtained by fraud; (ii) order is obtained by mis-representation or collusion with public authority by the private party; (iii) order is against public interest; (iv) the order is without jurisdiction; (v) order is in clear violation of the statutory rules or provisions of the; and (vi) order is void/void ab initio being against public policy or otherwise and thus, dismissed the writ petition.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant before us emphasised that the approach of the learned Single Judge is not correct. The learned Single Judge has not correctly appreciated the decision cited before him. According to the learned Counsel, the learned Single Judge has not correctly appreciated Pat Rams case (supra). According to the learned Counsel for the appellant after the conferment of the Khatedari rights in favour of a tenant no recourse could be held to the rules because the powers could only be exercised under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act as has been held by the learned Single Judge in Pat Rams case (supra). Learned counsel for the appellant has further urged that in Tej Singh v. State of Rajasthan and others reported in : [1994]3SCR1013 , the Honble Supreme Court had an occasion of considering the allotment made by misrepresentation and had condoned the fault committed by the allottee. Learned counsel for the appellant has further stressed that in Brij Lals case (supra) the Honble Supreme Court has refused to cancel the allotment made earlier because of the time factor. Thus, according to the learned Counsel for the appellant the allotment made in favour of the petitioner should also be saved.

5. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and have also perused the record.

6. The case considered by the Honble Supreme Court in Brij Lals case (supra) was in the back-ground that the allottee Brij Lal was holding the land on temporary lease. His temporary lease was obtained by making false declaration. No effort was made to get that lease cancelled ever. Neither there was any attempt on the part of the authorities to get the temporary lease cancelled that the same was obtained on misrepresentation or fraud. Subsequently land came to be allotted to Brij Lal permanently and in this back-ground the Honble Supreme Court observed that the High Court fell into a patent error in cancelling the permanent allotment made in favour of Brij Lal. The purport of the law laid down in Brij Lals case is that it was not the permanent allotment which was obtained by fraud. If at all the fraud was committed it was committed when the temporary allotment was made in favour of Brij Lal. That was never sought to be cancelled by the State. Therefore, the question of misrepresentation was not considered relevant by the Honble Supreme Court to reject the claim of Brij Lal for permanent allotment because in the proceedings for permanent allotment no misrepresentation was committed.

7. In the instant case, the allotment in question was obtained on misrepresentation. Therefore, Brij Lals case is of no assistance in the present case.

8. Further the arguments of the learned Counsel for the appellant are based on the decision of Pat Rams case (supra). The learned Single Judge has noticed the implication of misrepresentation and observed as under:

After the lapse of about sixteen years, when the allotment was not obtained either on misrepresentation or fraud, the exercise of powers by the Collector for cancellation of the allotment made in favour of the petitioners was not justified.

9. These are thoughtful observations of the learned Single Judge in Pat Rams case, which clearly means that as and when there is an allotment obtained by misrepresentation or fraud, the cancellation can be held to be justified. The case made out by the Collector is a case of misrepresentation. Therefore, the observations of the learned Single Judge in Pat Rams case supports the action taken by the Collector. The observations of the learned Single Judge regarding the enforceability of the Rules does not appear to be observations made after considering the language of the Rules which conferred the powers on the Collector to cancel the allotment and the rules give powers to the Collector to cancel the allotment made under the Rules. Rule 14(4) of the Rules of 1970 reads as under:

(4) The Collector shall have the power to cancel any allotment made by a Sub-Divisional Officer or a Tehsildar under the rules repealed by Rule 21 of the rules either suo motu or on the application of any person in case the allotment has been secured through fraud or misrepresentation or has been made against rules or in case the allottee has committed breach of any of the conditions of allotment:

Provided that no such order to the prejudice of any person shall be passed without giving such person an opportunity of being heard.

On enumerated condition, any allotment made under the Rules is liable to be cancelled under Rule 14(4) of the Rules of 1970. In the instant case, basic order conferring title on the allottee gets knocked down because of misrepresentation. Conferment of Khatedari right is only a consequential order. The basic order being an order obtained by misrepresentation regarding which a detailed discussion has been made by the learned Single Judge we are of the opinion that when the basic order goes the consequential orders have to go. Reference in this regard may be made to a decision of the Honble Supreme Court rendered in Mithoo Shahani and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. reported in : [1964]7SCR103 wherein it has been observed as under:

Where an order making an allotment is set aside the title which is obtained on the basis of the continuance of that order also falls with it. The relevant provisions of the and the Rules do not contain any provision which militates against the position which is consistent with principle and logic. It is manifest that a sanad can be lawfully issued only on the basis of a valid order of allotment. If an order of allotment which is the basis upon which a grant is made is set aside it would follow, and the conclusion is inescapable that the grant cannot survive, because in order that that grant should be valid it should have been effected by a competent officer under a valid order.

10. That being the position, the order of allotment being bad in the eyes of law being obtained by misrepresentation can be said to be ineffective. Any subsequent action on the basis of an order which is obtained on the basis of misrepresentation also cannot be maintained. No amount of time lapsed can be considered to be sufficient to confer a right on a person who had perpetrated fraud.

11. Another argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant relates to some observations made by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Tej Singh v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (supra). In Tej Singhs case (supra) the Honble Supreme Court has observed as under:

In this case, the facts found are that on the date of making the application and assignment namely, 18.11.1968, the appellant was a Gram Sewak, a public servant. Though he was a resident, his main source of income was, from service as Gram Sewak and hence he cannot also be said to be a bona fide agriculturist. That is the finding of fact recorded by all the authorities. Under these circumstances, it would amount to suppression of the material fact and of obtaining an order of assignment of 5 bighas of land. Therefore, the cancellation of the order cannot be said to be illegal. The power exercised by the Collector cannot be said to be without jurisdiction.

By the aforesaid observations, the Honble Supreme Court has upheld the action of the Collector in cancelling the allotment of land. However, in view of the special facts of that case, the Honble Supreme Court was of the view that the allottee was a temporary Gram Sewak in 1968 and admittedly in 1973 he resigned from the post and took up his avocation as an agriculturist and then for more than 20 years he has been personally cultivating the land and made improvements and thus, in this back ground the Honble Supreme Court maintaining the order of cancellation ordered the authorities not to dispossess the allottee from the land. Thus, the facts of the case clearly state that as and when any power is exercised by the Collector in the back ground of misrepresentation, this was not liable to be interfered with. In the instant case the observations of the Honble Supreme Court made in the case of Tej Singh (supra) apply with full force and the action of the Collector is liable to be sustained in the light of the observations made in Tej Singhs case.

12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we see no reason to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. There is no force in this special appeal and the same is dismissed.