- (1.) THIS petition has been filed with the prayer to quash and set aside the order dated 28-3-2011 passed by the Additional District Collector Jhunjhunu, setting aside the order dated 20-5-2011, passed by Village Panchayat Chudi Chatarpura and to uphold the allotment dated 20-5-2003 made by Village Panchayat Chudi Chatarpura in favour of the petitioner.
(2.) THE facts of the case are that the Village Panchayat Chudi Chatarpura made an allotment of land measuring 190 sq. ft. in favour of the petitioner Dharampal Singh purportedly under Rule 157 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 (herein after 'the 1996 Rules'). The said allotment was challenged by the respondents No.2, 3 and 4 herein by filing a revision petition before the Additional District Collector, Jhunjhunu on the ground that the land in dispute belonged to Peerji ki Majar, was not in the ownership of the Panchayat and hence could not have been utilised for making an allotment. It was further stated that prior to allotment the provisions of Rule 146 of the 1996 Rules were not followed and neither charges for site-inspection were deposited nor the site was inspected for preparation of the map. It was therefore prayed that the allotment of land in dispute in favour of the petitioner be set aside. Learned Additional Collector apart from hearing the arguments of the parties considered the application of the petitioner on the basis of which allotment of land was made by Village Panchayat Chudi Chatarpura, found that the petitioner had merely prayed that adjacent to his shop a parcel of land was lying vacant, over which no person had any claim, and therefore the same be allotted to the petitioner. The Additional Collector held that the petitioner had not even claimed old possession over the said parcel of land and consequently even assuming the land to be abadi land within the jurisdiction of the Panchayat the very foundation for invoking Rule 157 of the 1996 Rules was absent. Further the signatures of the Secretary of Village Panchayat were missing on the Patta. Further according to Rule 157 of the 1996 Rules for regularisation of an old construction the required fee is Rs.200/- and Rs.100/- for allotment fee did not appear to have accompanied the application for allotment. It was further held by the Additional Collector that if the parcel of land owned by the Panchayat was situated within abadi area and was vacant, the Panchayat was required to auction the same. Consequently the Additional Collector Jhunjhunu vide order dated 28-3-2011 held that allotment letter No.30 dated 20-5-2003 made to the petitioner was not in accordance with the provisions of the 1996 Rules and the same was liable to be quashed. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, and perused the material available on record of writ petition. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, and having perused the impugned order dated 28-3-2011 passed by the Additional Collector Jhunjhunu, I am of the view that the learned Collector has passed a reasoned order cancelling the allotment letter 20-5-2011 in favour of the petitioner. It is evident that the petitioner did not even claim old possession over the said land nor there appears to have been any old construction of the petitioner existing on the plot. The Village Panchayat Chudi Chatarpura had miserably failed to follow the procedure prescribed for allotment or take into consideration the preconditions for invoking Rule 157 of the 1996 Rules. In this view of the matter, I find no legal infirmity or perversity in the impugned order passed by the Additional Collector Jhunjhunu cancelling the allotment of land in dispute made in favour of the petitioner. Even otherwise within the limitation of the scope of petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as detailed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shalini Shyam Shetty Vs. Rajendra Shanakar Patil [(2010) 8 SCC 329] this petition has no force. I therefore find no force in the writ petition, and the same is therefore dismissed. Stay application also stands dismissed. ;