KESHOTE, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the petition, its enclosures, reply to the writ petition and the additional affidavit filed by Miss Sheela Madan daughter of Shri Ram Chandra Madan.
(2.) BY this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner is praying for quashing and setting aside of the orders dated 20. 3. 89 (Annexure-5), 24. 3. 89 (Annexure. 6), 29. 3. 89 (Annexure-7), dated 18. 10. 89 (Annexure-8) and judgment dated 27. 9. 89 (Annexure-9 ). The main and substantial order is Annexure-9 dated 27. 9. 89 of the District Collector, Alwar. For the decision of this case the facts are to be taken in brief which are that the petitioner found that some land near Panchayat Bhawan and hospital is lying vacant and for the purpose of construction of Dharamshala it applied to the Gram Panchayat for the grant of the same to it. It is stated that the petitioner was having knowledge that earlier Gram Panchayat had allotted the land free of cost to various institutions, details of those institutions have been given by the petitioner in para No. 4 of the writ petition. The application filed by the petitioner has been registered by the Gram Panchayat and it has issued notices for calling the objections from the public but it is stated that nobody has objected against the application of the petitioner. The Gram Panchayat under its resolution dated 18. 2. 89 resolved to allot the land in dispute to the petitioner and further ordered for issuance of a patta. The allotment has been made of the land in dispute in favour of the petitioner by the Gram Panchayat on certain conditions as enumerated in the resolution itself. It is stated that the land allotted to the petitioner was a waste land for all practical purposes and it has no market value and under Rule 266 (2) of the Rajasthan Panchayat (General) Rules, 1961 (hereinafter, referred as `the Rules, 1961') the land was transferred to the petitioner under that resolution. It is submitted that the petitioner made some improvement in the land after investing huge amount. It is to be mentioned here that the details of those investment alleged to have been made by the petitioner have not been given. The Tehsildar, Ramgarh under its order dated 20. 3. 89 informed to the petitioner that an enquiry is going to be convened regarding transfer of the land to the petitioner and construction is not to be put on the land in dispute.
(3.) THE Vikas Adhikari vide his letter dated 24. 3. 89 directed the Gram Panchayat not to issue the patta of the said plot to the petitioner. Copy of this letter has also been sent by the Vikas Adhikari to the petitioner also. THE letter has also been received by the petitioner from the Gram Panchayat. THE reference has been made by the petitioner to the letter of the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat dated 18. 10. 89 thereunder it is informed that the resolution dated 18. 2. 89 has been cancelled by the Collector, Alwar vide its order dated 27. 9. 89. THE petitioner has been directed to remove Malva existing on the plot. Hence this petition. Reply to the writ petition has been filed by respondent Nos. 1 & 2. In the reply it is stated that the Gram Panchayat has made the allotment of this land contrary to the provisions of Rule 266 of the Rules, 1961. The value of the land was much more than Rs. 200/ -. As per the report of the Sub Registrar, Ramgarh the value of the land was Rs. 69,200/- at the relevant time. The power to interfere in the matter by the Collector is there under the Panchayat Act. It is stated that this allotment has been procured for the petitioner by the MLA of the area and the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat. This matter has come up for hearing in the Court from time to time earlier. During the course of the arguments it is noticed that the land in dispute appears to be used as a play ground for the girls of the nearby senior secondary school. ;