D.P. Gupta, J.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Kesra Fam was allotted 25 bighas of agricultural land by the Assistant Colonisation Commissioner, Rajasthan Canal Project, Sri Bijeynagar, by his order dated July 3, 1975, under the provisions of the Rajasthan Colonisation (Sale and Allotment of Government Land to Post-1955 Temporary Cultivation Lease-holders and other Landness Persons in the Rajasthan Canal Project Areal Rules, 1971. It was further ordered that the remaining 25 bighas of agricultural land in the possession of the petitioner Kesia Ram has vested in the State Government & Kesraram was directed to hand over possession of the same to the Tehsildar Colonisation, Suratgarh. The petitioner has filed the present wait petition in this Court against the arosesaid order and has prayed that the respondents be prohibited from alloting the surplus land to other persons by lottery system without giving notice to the petitioner No. 1, Jag Ram who said to be the adult son of the petitioner No. 2, Kesra Kam.
2. It may be mentioned here that the aforesaid Rules were repealed by the Rajasthan Colonisation (Allotment and Sale of Government Land in the Rajasthan Canal Colony Area) Rules, 1975 which came into force with effect from August 8, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as 'the new Rules'). Under Clause (3) of Rule 4 of the new Rules, the Allotting Authority has to review on its own motion the order passed under the repealed inks if it finds such allotment order to be inconsistent with the provisions of the new Rules and While deciding the application for allotment review in review, the Allotting Authority will give notice to an adult son of such land-holder, if he is other wise eligible for allotment of land under the new Rules. The order Ex. 1 does rot show that the petitioner Kesra Ram ever disclosed before the A1 otting Authority that he has an adult son and it is not the case of the petitioner that after the coming into force of the new Rules they or either of them ever approached the Allotting Authority requesting for the review of the order passed under the repent rules on the ground that the petitioner Kesra am has an adult son, petitioner No. 1, Jagram and that he is otherwise eligible for allotment of land under the new Rules. The Allotting Authority cannot of his own imagination think that petitioner Kesra Ram has a son who may otherwise be eligible for allotment of agricultural land under the IKW Rules and tins fact has to be disclosed to the Alloting Authority by the petitioner No. 2 or by Jag Ram petitioner No. 1. But the petitioners have not taken any steps in this direction and have approached this Court by filing a writ petition. The parties may if they so desire, approach the Allotting Authority and disclose to him the fact that the petitioner Kesra Ram has an adult son and that the son is otherwise eligible for allotment of land under the new Rules.
3. With these observations, the writ petition is dismissed.