Hon'ble RAFIQ, J.—All these writ petitions are directed against identical orders passed by Additional District Collector, Kota, dated 27.3.2006 by which revision petitions filed by certain residents of village Aayana, Panchayat Samiti Itawa, Tehsil Pipalda, District Kota, have been allowed and pattas issued in favour of petitioners for allotment of pieces of land to all of them except two, in the varying size of 5-1/2' x 8', 5-1/2 x 9', 10' x 11', 10' x 11', or 10' x 15', 20' x 12', 9' x 12' for running kiosks to earn their livelihood, have been cancelled. Two of petitioners, namely Swami Vivekanand School, Aayana (CW 10309/2009) and Bajrang Vayyam Shala (CW-4759/2009), were allotted a larger chunk of land measuring 6320 square yard for setting-up a school and 554 square yard for setting up a public gym, respectively, which too have been cancelled by the impugned orders.

2. Factual matrix of the case is that Gram Panchayat, Aayana issued patta of land in favour of petitioner on or about 20.12.2004. Originally, part of this land was allotted to Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (for short, `BSNL') but BSNL informed the Gram Panchayat that it did not require the land and therefore allotment may be cancelled. Allotment made to BSNL was cancelled with approval of the Panchayat Samiti. Allotment is claimed to have been made in favour of petitioners on the basis of resolution passed by full quorum of the gram sabha on 26.8.2004. It is claimed that all the petitioners are below poverty line (for shot, `BPL'), and, are landless and unemployed persons. Object of allotment of land was to enable them to earn their livelihood. Similarly, allotment has been made to petitioner Swami Vivekanand School and Shri Bajrang Vyayamshala for running public school and public gym. Certain Villagers challenged allotment of lands and pattas by filing revision petitions, which were allowed by impugned judgment dated 27.3.2006. Petitioners filed review petition before Additional District Collector, Kota, who, by its order dated 5.4.2007 rejected the same, hence the writ petitions.

3. Smt. Kamla Jain, learned counsel for petitioners, argued that allotment of land to petitioners was made strictly in accordance with Rule 158 of Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 (for short, `the Rules of 1996') by resolution of Gram Sabha dated 26.8.2004; said resolution of the gram sabha mentions the fact that all petitioners are BPL, landless and unemployed persons. Petitioners have established small kiosks over allotted plots and have been earning their livelihood by sale of eatables etc. or otherwise doing small jobs like cycle-repairing etc. It is argued that Additional District Collector erred in law in holding that provisions of Rule 141 to 167 of Rules of 1996 were violated whereas allotment in present case was made under Rule 158, which enables gram panchayat to make allotment of lands not only for residential but also commercial purpose, to members of Scheduled Caste, scavengers, Scheduled Tribes, Backward Classes, village artisans, landless persons dependent on wage labour, IRDP selected families, Handicapped, Nomatic Tribes, Gadia Lohar etc. It is also argued that Rule 158 of the Rules of 1996 is a complete code in itself and it is as per said Rule that allotments have been made. Learned Additional District Collector was therefore wholly unjustified in holding that allotments were null and void.

4. Smt. Kamla Jain further argued that revision petitions were filed much belatedly and it was result of political rivalry between villagers. It is argued that disputed land is still in possession of petitioners, who are running their kiosks on the land. Prior to making allotment of land, a report of committee of panchas was obtained and thereafter objection from general public was called for on 20.11.2004. Learned counsel in this connection drew attention of the court towards proceedings of the gram sabha dated 20.11.2004. Reference was also made to the resolution of standing

Click Here to Read the rest of this document