The main legal point established is that administrative bodies must adhere to prescribed procedures and consider higher authorities' directions in decision-making.

Govind Mathur, J.-This petition for writ is preferred by the petitioners seeking a direction to restrain

Gram Panchayat Chak 25-H, Tehsil Srikaranpur, District Sriganganagar from allotting the land as abadi

plots in Khasra No. 52/1 measuring 4 bighas. A direction is further sought to cancel pattas issued as

per the resolution of Gram Panchayat 25-H dated 27.08.1993.

2. The facts of the case, as stated in the petition, are that 20 bighas of agricultural land stood in the name of number of persons including Harichand and Pohumal. After death of above named Pohumal his son Shri Vidhyaprakash acquired rights being his legal heir. After death of Pohumal partition was also affected between various co-tenants as a consequence of which Shri Harichand and Vidhyaprakash became the joint khatedar tenants of 20 bighas and 3 biswas of land which was marked as Khasra Nos. 52 and 52/1. After death of Shri Vidhyaprakash name of petitioner No. 1 being his son was entered in the revenue record in respect of land in Khasra Nos. 52 and 52/1. It is also stated that the land measuring 8 bighas and 3 biswas under the tenancy of the petitioners is abadi land. The land measuring 4 bighas situated in Khasra No. 52/1 is agricultural land. According to the petitioners Administrator of the Gram Panchayat prepared a plan of Khasra No. 52/1 and demarcated the residential plots treating the land as a panchayat property. The Gram Panchayat Chak 28-H under its resolution dated 27.08.1993 made allotment of plots in favour of five persons, namely, Gorkharam S/o Shankarram, Tharuram S/o Devaram, Ramchandra S/o Banwarilal, Pappu Singh S/o Maghar Singh and in favour of temple Ramdeoji. The allotment sought to be made under resolution dated 27.08.1993 was free of cost. As a consequence of resolution dated 27.08.1993 pattas were also issued by Gram Panchayat in favour of person concerned. The petitioners have also stated that before issuance of pattas by the Administrator of Gram Panchayat Chak 25-H an application was preferred by the petitioners before the Administrator of Gram Panchayat with a request not to permit the persons to whom land was allotted to occupy the land concerned. The petitioners at the same time also approached to the Panchayat Samiti, Srikaranpur and the Vikas Adhikari of the Panchayat Samiti, Srikaranpur passed an order dated 23.08.1993 directing the Administrator of Gram Panchayat not to take any action with regard to allotment of land from Khasra Nos. 52 and 52/1. An order to maintain status quo was also passed by Vikas Adhikari of Panchayat Samiti. The order passed by Vikas Adhikari was received by Administrator of Gram Panchayat on 24.08.1993 but in ignorance of it the Gram Panchayat adopted the resolution dated 27.08.1993 and issued pattas in pursuance of resolution referred above. The contention of the petitioners is that neither the land from which plots are sought to be allotted is agricultural land nor the procedure prescribed under the Rules 257 to 261 of the Rajasthan Panchayat (General) Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 1961”) was adhered by the respondents while making allotment.

3. A reply to the writ petition has been filed on behalf of the respondents stating therein that the petitioners are having an alternative remedy under Section 61 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1994”) by way of filing an appeal. It is also stated in reply to the writ petition that entire land which is subject matter of present writ is shown as Gair Mumkin Abadi Land in revenue record. The respondents admitted that when resolution was taken by the Gram Panchayat with regard to allotment of plots direction issued by Vikas Adhikari of Panchayat Samiti, Srikaranpur to maintain status quo was available. However, no reason has been given by the respondents as to why the Gram Panchayat ignored the direction given by Vikas Adhikari.

4. I have heard Counsel for the parties.

5. I do not