The Gaon Sabha had the authority to allot pasture land for residential purposes as part of the extension of the village abadi, and any irregularities in the allotment process or the eligibility of the allottees were subject to review by the Deputy Commissioner and the Chief Commissioner under the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954.

( 1 ) THE petitioners have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the allotments made by the respondents under the 20-Point Programme of the Government of India in village Harevli, Delhi and also for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to perform their duties in accordance with law. of Delhi and others

( 2 ) RESPONDENT No. 2 Delhi Administration issued an order dated 18-8-1982 under Rule 178 (2) of the Delhi Panchayat Raj (Amendment) Rules, 1976, whereunder some guidelines were framed for purposes of alloting lands in village Harevli Subsequently, the aforesaid order was amended in a meeting held by the Lt. Governor on 3-9-1986 in the presence of the Executive Councillor and other officials, wherein it was provided that a Committee should be formed of the Block Development Officer, Tehsildar and the Village Pradhan who would receive the applications which would be invited after due publicity and the limit of Rs. 7501- as income of the allottee was sought to be raised to Rs. 1200!- per month.

( 3 ) ABOUT 216 allotments of plots have been made in village Harevii, and in this petition challenge is made to these allotments. The grievance of the petitioners against these allotments is two-fold viz. :-

THAT the allotment is in respect of land which is meant for permanent cattle grazing being pasture land the use of which cannot be altered and which is Shamlat Deh.

EVEN if assuming that the allotment can be made in respect of this land, the same has been made in total violation of Rule 178 (2) of Delhi Panchayat Raj Act, 1954 arid in total violation of the alleged criteria set out in the amended guidelines and that the allotments have been made without compliance with any procedure as prescribed by law or in accordance with tb3 principles of natural justice, without any valid resolution of the Gram Panchayat and without any scrutiny regarding the eligibility of the allottees. This petition, has been contested by the respondents.

( 4 ) THE Petitioner s counsel relied upon the entry in the copy of the Wajib-ul-arz of village Harevli, Delhi for the year 1908-1909 wherein the land in question has been shown as having been left for the use of Chiragh, i. e. for cattle grazing with a further direction therein that no one would be entitled lo make the same cultivable and if any one does so, he would be liable to be ejected. Even in the Khatauni for the year 1977-78 this land has been shown as permanent pasture land though belonging to Gaon Sabha. It was, thus, contended on behalf of the petitioners that the land in question could be used only as a pasture land permanently for the grazing of cattle in the village and could not be converted to any other use muchless for allotment of the same as plots for residential purposes as is being done by the Gram Panchayat. This contention does not have any force for the reason that even though this land was a pasture land, meant for the grazing of the cattle of the villagers of village Harevli, the same stood vested in the Gaon Sabha of this village under S. 7 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 (in short the Act) and the rights of the proprietors therein stood extinguished. The learned counsel for the respondents has not disputed the pasture nature of this land but has contended, and in our opinion rightly, that after the vesting of this land in the Gaon Sabha, as pointed out above, the Gaon Sabha was not bound to keep it as a pasture land and was entitled to use it for the extension of the village abadi. He has pointed out in this context sub-sec. (1) of S. 19 of the Delhi Panchayat Raj Act, 1954 whereunder a Gaon Panchayat may make provisions within its jurisdiction for extension of the abadi A. number of discretionary functions have been enumerated under S. 19 and making provisions for extension of the ahadi is one out of the same.

( 5 ) IT would be seen that the petiti