Allotment of land within municipal limits is prohibited under the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Land For Agricultural Purposes) Rules, 1970. Persons already owning land are not eligible for allotment of land under the rules. Allotment of land must be made in accordance with the proper procedure prescribed by the rules, including the requirement to invite applications from all eligible persons.

1. - Admitted facts are that Khasra No. 276 measuring 12 Biswa, Khasra No. 277 measuring 1 Bigha 6 Biswa, Khasra No. 278 measuring 2 Bighas 2 Biswa and Khasra No. 279 measuring 11 Biswa totalling 4 Bigha 11 Biswa situated in village Paladi Meena, Tehsil Sanganer within the radius of three miles if Municipal limits of city of Jaipur having a population of more than nine lass at the time of filing of the writ petition, was allotted vide Annexure-23 dated 14.12.1982 and Annexure-24 dated, 13.1.1983 to the respondents Shri Rajeev Mathur and Ravi Mathur sons of Om Prakash Mathur, both residents of 'Chaman Villa', 29, Hathroi Fort, Sanjay Marg, Jaipur. The petitioner states that the impugned orders of allotment have been made in favour of private respondents totally in violation and contravention of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Land For Agricultural Purposes) Rules, 1970. The petitioner states that this land was not available for allotment under the said rules of 1970 in view of Rule 4 of the said rules. Rule 4(5) of the said rules states that the following catgory of lands shall not be available for allotment for agricultural purposes under these rules, namely;

4 Land not available for allotment under these rules:-The following categories of lands shall not be available for allotment for agricultural purposes under these rules namely:

(v) Lands within:-

(a) a radius of three miles of municipal limits of cities having a population of five lacs or more;

(b) a radius of two miles of municipal limits of towns with a population of two lacs or more, but below five lass;

(c) a radius of one mile of municipal limits of towns with a population of one lac or more, but below two lacs;

(d) municipal limits of any other towns;

(e) one hundred yards of a railway fencing, or

(f) fifty yards from the centre of national highway or any other mettled or gravelled road.'

2. Apart from the fact it is stated that the land was not available for allotment and even if the land was allotable under the rules, in that situation also the land could not have been allotted to the petitioner until and unless the applications from all eligible persons as required under Rule 11 were invited. Rule 11 states that the land shall be allotted only to landless persons as defined under the Tenancy Act and to the extent that he is landless and if there is one applicant on account of a particular plot, it shall be allotted to him and in case there are more than one applicant requiring the same plot of land, it should be allotted to them as per the priority fixed u/s.101(4) of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act. Rule 13 states that the allotment is to be made in consultation with the advise of the allotment committee and rule 14 prescribes certain conditions of allotment. Rule 17 prescribes that notwithstanding anything contained in the rules, the Government in the revenue department shall have the powers to allot the land to any person subject to the provisions of Rule 101 of the Act and condition of allotment contained in Rule 14. Rule 19 is an enabling provision for allotment of small strip or patch adjoining to the field of the khatedar tenant on the application made by such tenant.

3. The private respondent Nos. 3 and 4 who are said to be owning about 3 Bigha of land and not doing any cultivation of land is said to have applied for allotment of land of the khasra numbers in question as mentioned above for agricultural purposes. The petitioner submits that as a matter of fact Ravi Mathur was aged 16 years and was a student of XI class whereas Rajeev Mathur was 21 years of age and was a student of college at that time and none of them had done any cultivation in their own land khasra Nos. 274 and 275. Rather they had rented the land to one Rajesh Motors which is doing its business of body-building of construction of trucks on the said land. The petitioner submits that rather the petitioner was doing the cultivation with Khasra No. 276 to 279 as per the revenue reco