Admit. Respondents waive service of notice. By consent heard finally.

2. This Letters Patent Appeal challenges an order of the learned Single Judge dismissing a writ petition being Writ Petition no. 985 of 2002 filed by the appellant - original petitioner.

3. The appellant - original petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to challenge the order passed by the State of Maharashtra - respondent no.1 allotting and granting a plot of land (immovable property) to respondent no.3 before us.

4. The grievance of the petitioner is that there is a plot of land bearing No.131 within Achalpur City limits and which is a Government Land. The appellant as well as 3rd respondent made attempts to obtain allotment of this land in their favour. The Sub Divisional Officer rejected the request of both. However, the 3rd respondent carried the matter in appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Amravati. That appeal was dismissed. Thereafter, he filed a Revision before the State Government, which was heard and decided by Minister of the Department of Revenue. That Revision was directed against the orders passed by the Sub Divisional Officer and the Additional Commissioner. By an order dated 2-8-2000, the Minister of State for Revenue, Government of Maharashtra, set aside the orders of the Sub Divisional Officer as also the Additional Commissioner and allotted the land to 3rd respondent and directed that the necessary steps be taken in terms of Rule 28 of the Maharashtra State Land Revenue (Disposal of Government Land) Rules 1971.

5. Aggrieved by this order, the appellant filed the above writ petition which was admitted and when listed for final hearing, the learned Single Judge has proceeded to dismiss the same by the impugned order dated 25-4-2011 only on the ground that the appellant original writ petitioner has no locus to file the writ petition as he was not party to the proceedings before the Sub Divisional Officer, the Additional Commissioner and the State Government. Secondly, the appellant also did not file any application before any of the authorities seeking intervention in the matter. Merely because the appellant had filed another application before the Sub Divisional Officer for allotment of the land in his favour, that does not enable the appellant society to file a writ petition challenging the orders of the State.

6. The learned Judge has also held that the plot of land was earmarked for religious purpose, but not used for any such purpose since past more than 80 years. That is how the Minister directed the disposal of the plot in favour of the respondent no.3 and such an order does not call for any interference in writ jurisdiction.

7. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant, learned AGP for respondent nos. 1 & 2 and the learned Advocate on behalf of the contesting respondent no.3. With their assistance, we have perused the impugned order and some of the documents including the original writ petition and the order of the Minister.

8. In our view, with greatest respect, the learned Judge has erred in dismissing the writ petition on the ground of appellant's locus. Even if that is assumed to be a point which merited the dismissal of the writ petition, yet, the learned Judge ought to have considered the basic and core issue that is, the allotment of Government land. This issue goes to the root of the matter. Even if the Maharashtra State Land Revenue (Disposal of Government Land) Rules 1971, enable the Government to allot lands and particularly plots of the nature stated in the writ petition, yet, it is not, as if, they can be allotted straightway and without any reference to the specific Rules and the user enumerated therein. If one peruses the Rules carefully, there are several Chapters and some heads under which various types of lands have to be dealt with. It is not clear as to which Rule the Government had in mind because under Rule 28 the land to freedom fight