The identification of alternate suitable land in response to the unavailability of the originally applied land can justify the allotment of land without auction, as per the provisions of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Industrial Areas Allotment) Rules, 1959.

1. - Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 10.5 .2001. It is not in dispute that initially joint application was made on behalf of the appellant and the third respondent Manjit Singh for allotment of land in Khasra No. 173 for the establishment of weigh bridge. The land was not allotted for the reason that an underground pipe line was passing through the said land. However, they were asked to identify alternate land. It is not in dispute that the third respondent identified the alternate land in Khasra No. 412/983, which was otherwise suitable. Accordingly, the said land was allotted to Manjit Singh to for the purpose of establishing weigh bridge. However, the appellant failed to identify the land for allotment and as such no land could be allotted to him. Subsequently, he made an application which is said to be still pending. The learned Single Judge has given a direction to the Collector for consideration of the application of the appellant without being influenced by the fact that one allotment has already been made in favour of the third respondent.

2. It is contended by the learned counsel that the allotment of the land in favour of the third respondent is contrary to the provisions of Rajasthan Land Revenue (Industrial Areas Allotment) Rules, 1959 inasmuch as this could be done only by auction.

3. We are unable to agree with the submission of the learned counsel. Initially the allotment was made in Khasra No. 173. However, as the land was not available for allotment the parties were asked to identify the alternate land. In response to that the third respondent identified the land, the same has been allotted. The petitioner applied subsequently and the said application is still pending. The learned Single Judge has already given a direction for the disposal of the application.

4. Thus, we find no merit in this special appeal and the same is dismissed.Special Appeal Dismissed.

*******