The Act and the Rules do not provide for the exchange or consolidation of land, and the purpose of the Act is to prevent damage to land and loss in agricultural productivity.

1. - The instant writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 19.10.87 (Annx. 5) passed by the Additional Collector, CAD. Kota-Bundi, by which the application of the not to give effect to his order in favour of contesting respondent Nos. 4 to 7 dated 11.9.87 has been rejected and the order dated 22.8.88 (Annx. 6) passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Kota, by which the appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed.

2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that petitioner owned and was in possession of Khasra No. 146 measuring 26 Bigha 13 Biswas and Khasra No. 164 measuring 10 Bighas 3 Biswas and the contesting respondents owned the land in Khasra No. 148 measuring 31 Bigha 10 Biswas in the Revenue Estate of village Jahangirpur, tehsil Bigod, district Kota. The aforesaid lands of both the parties were notified by the State Government under the provisions of the Rajasthan Land Development Corporation Act, 1975 (for short, `the Act'). The land development work stood concluded in 1987 and new Khasra Nos. were allotted. Area of land to some extent of both the parties stood reduced because of the development work and subsequently the notices were dated 9.4.87 (Annx. 1) issued to the parties that the possession of their respective land would be handed over to them. The contesting respondents filed application dated 11.9.87 before the respondent No. 3 that while making the development of their land, a drainage has been dugged thus, they may be given land on one side of the same. Respondent No. 3, on the same date, issued directions to the Patwari concerned to allot them land on one side of the drainage (Annx. 3). Petitioner, being aggrieved, moved an application on 18.9.87 before the respondent No. 3 that the land, which was initially belonged to him and had been taken by the Corporation for development and after development had been handed over to him, could not be given to the contesting respondents on any ground. The said application was registered as Case No. 31/87 and decided by the respondent No. 3, vide order dated 19.10.87 (Annx. 5) by making an order in favour of the contesting respondents. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, petition preferred appeal No. RLDC 412/87, which was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 22.6.88 (Annx. 6). Hence this petition.

3. Mr. Mahrish, learned counsel for the petitioner, has raised a large number of issues, including that of limitation, urging that the application could have been filed within a period of thirty days as provided under the provisions of rule 16 of the Rajasthan Land Development Rules, 1977 (for short, `the Rules, 1977'). The said rule provides for a limitation of thirty days for makings grievance though the Collector may admit an application after the said period provided he is satisfied that the applicant has sufficient cause for not preferring the application within the said period. In the instant case, petitioner failed to lay down the factual foundation on the issue. There is nothing on record to show as on what date the parties had actually been put in possession and whether the dates preceding the filing of the application were holidays and whether the application could be saved by the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Thus, the issue cannot be determined and hence rejected.

4. It is next urged by Mr. Mahrish that the Act and the Rules framed thereunder provide for development of the land and the Act and the Rules do not empower the Authority to exchange the land of one tenure-holder with another or consolidate the land of any tenure-holder, therefore, if the land in dispute initially belonged to the petitioner, the same could not be given to the contesting respondents. On the contrary, Mr. Garg has submitted that under Section 42 of the Act, any kind of dispute can be agitated before the to Collector and the said order will be appealable before the Divisional Commissioner, therefore, the Authorities have the power to exch