Choga Ram vs State of Rajasthan and Others

Heard Mr. M.S. Singhvi, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Anil Bhandari, learned Counsel for Respondent No. 4. This appeal is directed against order dated 29th September, 1997, passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 2675/87, whereby and whereunder, allotment of Abadi land made in favour of the appellant was cancelled and directions were issued to the Authorities to remove the construction of shops on the land in question.

The facts of the case fall in narrow compass. The appellant, who was respondent No. 3 in the writ application, made an application before the Gram Panchayat for allotment of Abadi land under the provisions of Rule 267 of the of the Rajasthan Panchayat (General) Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Rules of 1961''). The Gram Panchayat, in the light of application filed by the appellant, allotted a piece of Abadi land measuring 233 Sq.Yds. in favour of the appellant free from charge. Abadi land, thus, was utilised by the appellant by constructing three shops.

The matter, however, was racked up by the writ petitioner before this Court, saying that allotment of land in favour of the appellant was de hors of the provisions of Rule 267 of the Rules on the plea that he was neither a homeless person, nor was a resident of the area where land in question was allotted.

The writ application was disposed on contest and the allotment made in favour of the appellant was cancelled. Necessary directions were issued for removal the shops standing on the land in question.

Mr. Singhvi, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, submitted that the appellant who had applied for allotment of land under the provisions of Rule 267 of the Rules of 1961, was a member of Scheduled Caste and since he was not having any land in his constituency, he applied for allotment of the land for his own purposes. It is further contended that the Authorities, having examined the application of the appellant, allotted the land in accordance with law, free of cost. Mr. Singhvi, learned Counsel, further contended that the writ application itself was not maintainable as it was filed treating the same as public interest litigation at the behest of the writ petitioner who was political rival of the appellant. In this regard reference has been made to Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, . Mr. Singhvi, learned Counsel, also submitted that the allotment of the land subsequently was regularized by the Authority which was never challenged and, therefore, the writ petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the allotment of land which merged with the order of regularization.

Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 4, on the contrary, submitted that since the allotment of land in favour of the appellant was in complete violation of Rule 267 of the Rules, the writ petitioner has failed to challenge the same and the writ application was never treated as public interest litigation.

We have scrutinized the order impugned and the facts placed on record.

The appellant who was a member of the Scheduled Caste, had applied for settlement of Abadi land and the same was allotted to him under the purported exercise of power under Rule 267 of the Rules, but the appellant was not fulfilling the conditions laid down under Rule 267 of the Rules, inasmuch as that he was neither resident of the District of Sirohi, nor he made out a case that he is homeless person in the District of Sirohi and particularly in the place where he was asked for settlement of Abadi land. From the material on record, it is admitted position that the appellant was resident of Barmer District and he had applied for allotment of Abadi land in his constituency in the District of Sirohi.

The learned Single Judge of this Court meticulously examined the provisions of Rules 255, 265 and 267 of the Rules and on appreciation of pleadings of the parties and facts brought on record, held that the allotment of land in favour of the appellant was wholly without jurisdiction. It is not in dispute that the appellant had applied for allotment of Abadi land and the Authorities allotted piece of land measuring 233 Sq. Yds. Of land in his favour in violation of mandates of Rules 267 of the Rules. Rule 267 (2) (a) puts a ceiling for settlement of Abadi land which would be not more than 150 Sq. Yds. to a person who was virtually homeless or flood affected and belongs to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe category.

The Authorities, while allotting the Abadi land in favour of the appellant, had not only exceeded their jurisdiction in crossing the ceiling fixed under the provisions of the Rules, but also ignoring the fact that the appellant had not made out a case that he is a homeless person so far the place in Sirohi District was concerned.

On reading of the provisions of Rule 267 as a whole, it appears that this provision was enacted for benefits of the persons belonging to Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe category, having no homestead land anywhere or for the persons belonging to that category affected by the floods etc. The facts which have been brought on record rather suggest that the appellant, at the relevant, was elected M.L.A. and Deputy Minister of the State of Rajasthan and he utilised the land in question for commercial purposes. The provision of law, as applied by the Authorities, in the given facts and circumstances of the case, thus was not applicable so far the appellant was concerned. The learned Single Judge of this Court on totality of facts as referred to above, cancelled the allotment made in favour of the appellant.

The question of locus standi as raised by Mr. Singhvi with reference to the case of Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra (Supra), in our view, is not applicable at this stage when the matter was already examined and the writ application was allowed, more so we do not find any ingredient of public interest in the writ application.

The allotment of land made in favour of the appellant, in the given facts and circumstances of the case, is held to be ab initio void and mere regularization of the allotment, therefore, will not create any right in the appellant nor it will take effect of the void orders.

For the reasons aforementioned and the reasonings, we do not find any justification to interfere with the order impugned. In the result, this appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.