P.K.LOHRA, J. - (1.) PETITIONER , who is resident of Rasuwala, Tehsil Sangaria, District Hanumangarh, has preferred this writ petition praying therein under -mentioned reliefs: "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, the non - petitioner No.2 be directed to accept the application of the petitioner for allotment of land as Special Allotment under Rule 13A of the Rules of 1975 situated in Murabba No.196/446 of Chak 11 A.S., Tehsil Vijaynagar measuring 25 bigha. Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner. Award the cost of this writ petition to the petitioner against the non -petitioners."
(2.) FOR claiming reliefs mentioned to supra, it is inter -alia averred in the petition that the State Government enacted Rajasthan Colonization Act, 1954 (for short, 'Act of 1954') to facilitate better provision for the colonization and administration of lands in the colony areas notified under the provisions. For allotment and sale of land around Indira Gandhi Canal, the State Government framed the Rajasthan Colonization (Allotment and Sale of Government Land in Indira Gandhi Nahar Pariyojna) Rules 1975 (for short, 'Rules of 1975'). Under the Rules of 1975, there are certain provisions for allotment of land to various categories of persons. Rule 13A of the Rules of 1975 envisage that land can be allotted by special allotment to persons who are eligible for such allotment by order of preference given in Rule 7(1) of the Rules of 1975 provided he fulfills the requisite terms and conditions as made applicable under the Act of 1954 and the Rules made thereunder. It is also averred in the petition that the State Government from time to time has notified the land, which is to be allotted by special allotment as per schedule of time provided in the notification under Rule 13A of the Rules of 1975. It so happened that State Government notified the land for special allotment in the year 1997 and pursuant thereto the petitioner submitted his application on 17.12.1997. Along with the application, requisite fee was also deposited by him. The application submitted by the petitioner was processed and he was called upon to submit the requisite documents for allotment of land. Thereafter, the proceedings continued and ultimately the said application of the petitioner was rejected on 15.03.2000 for the reason that the petitioner has applied for allotment of land in Murabba No.197/456 of Chak No.11 A.S., Tehsil Sri Vijay Nagar, which is not part of the notified land for special allotment as per Gazette Notification. According to the petitioner, he was permitted to apply afresh for the allotment of land, which is notified in the Gazette. The petitioner has made a specific mention in his petition that after rejection of his application, he immediately submitted another application for allotment of land situated in Murabba No.196/446 of Chak No.11 A.S., Tehsil Sri Vijay Nagar measuring 25 bigha, but said application of the petitioner was not taken care of by the competent authority for a considerable period. For consideration of his application, the petitioner made endeavour to apprise the authority by submitting various representations but no heed was paid to all those representations. On inquiries being made by the petitioner, he was conveyed that his that application is lying in the file which has been consigned to record. In order to substantiate this assertion, the petitioner has placed on record Annex.3 certified copy of the copying application submitted by him before the Additional District Magistrate, Suratgarh for obtaining authenticated copy of the application dated 15.03.2000 submitted by him for allotment of land in Chak 11 A.S. Murabba No.196/466 with its rejection order endorsed overleaf the application. Subsequent to that, the petitioner has also submitted yet another copying application but with the same result as the application was not available in the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the application, which was laid in the year 2000, has not been considered by the authorities despite repeatedly pursuing the same, therefore, the directions sought for is liable to be issued for deciding his application.
(3.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record, I am unable to accept the prayer of the petitioner.;