The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the relevant provisions of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act and the General Rules in determining the validity of land allotment.

1. - These two cases (one, Writ Petition No. 386/77 and another Civil Second Appeal No. 75/1981) are concerned with the validity of the allotment of land made in favour of the petitioner, Vrihad Krishi Rynadatri Samiti Ltd. Govindgarh in Alwar district (for brevity, the Society') which is the appellant-defendant in (Civil Second Appeal No. 75/1981) which may be conveniently disposed of by one judjement as they involve a point common to these cases and arises out of a dispute relating to identical piece of land in Khasra Nos. 1395, 1396 and 1399 in the Gram Panchayat Rambas Panchayat Samiti Laxmangarh and, therefore, we propose to dispose of them by a single judjement.

2. Writ Petition No. 386/1977 had been filed in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated June 26, 1974 (Annexure 2) passed by the Collector, Alwar and the order dated March 14, 1977 (Annexure 3) passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Alwar, and further directing the Revenue Appellate Authority, Alwar (non-petitioner No. 1 in writ petition) to hear the revision and/or appeal on merits.

3. These two cases arise out of different proceedings and thus the facts are different to some extent in each case but the differences are immaterial and these cases pivot upon the point relating to the validity of the allotment of land made in favour of the Society. How ever, before narrating their history it would be convertent to briefly set out the facts upon which the claim of the parties to the use of the land in dispute is based. The petitioner No. 1, as already stated is a registered Society and other petitioners are its President, Manager, Mantri and Members; and as alleged in the writ petition, the said society consists of small agriculturists and has been constituted for the purposes of welfare and ameliorating the conditions of the poor agriculturists and its object is to grant of loan seeds etc. to the small and village agriculturists.

4. The case of the petitioner-Society which is the appellant defendant in Civil Second Appeal No. 75/1981, is that the land in dispute was allotted to the Society by the Gram Panchayat Rambas on January 21, 1974, and the Sand in dispute is situated in Khasra No. 1399. It has been averred that the land in dispute was allotted to the petitioner Society on a consideration of Rs. 1000/- which has been received by the Gram Panchayat as donation for the construction of a middle School. On the basis of the aforesaid claim, the Society and petitioners claimed themselves as owner of the land in dispute. The Society further pleaded that the land in dispute allotted to it by the Gram Panchayat was not part of a public highway but it was an agricultural land & unless it formed part of the defendant's land or it is established that the respondent-plaintiff had a right of easement/way or easement of necessity, the respondent-plaintiff had no right to challenge the aforesaid allotment made in favour of the Society petitioners or to file suit in order to restrain the society-petitioners from making any construction on the disputed land.

5. Bholaram, the plaintiff (here in respondent No. 4 in Writ Petition No. 385/77 and respondent No. 1 in Second Appeal No. 75/81) filed a suit against the Society petitioners in the Court of Munsif Magistrate Laxmangarh for removing the encroachment alleged to have been made on a piece of land which has been claimed by the Society-petitioners. The plaintiff-respondent pleaded that he has purchased from Gram Panchayat Rambas a plot measuring 18 ft. X 45 ft. on 6-10-1966 but the defendants Society trespassed upon public highway and they made construction on the public highway after leaving a lane of 3 ft. from the plot purchased by the respondent-plaintiff. The plaintiff-respondent therefore, averred that his right of way was effected and the light & air to his plot was obstructed. The p