Honble CHAUHAN, J.–The instant writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 19.12.97, by which the land in dispute had been allotted to the Society and further for quashing the order fixing the rate at Rs. 290/- per square yard for the said land.

(2). The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the petitioner claims to be a Member of Sindhi Samaj and has alleged that the allotment of the land in dispute had been made in favour of the Society by the respondent Rajasthan Housing Board vide order dated 19.12.97 on collusion with the respondents, i.e. office-bearers of the Society, the Chairman and other officers of the Rajasthan Housing Board. Relief sought is that the said society be restrained from raising and construction for school or Community Centre. This Court, from time to time, had passed certain interim orders and earlier had directed that the matter shall be heard finally in September, 2002, but for paucity of time, it could not be heard and detailed interim orders had been passed, applications had been filed every day and disposed of by the courts, hence the matter was listed for final hearing on 28.1.2003.

(3). Mr. Acharya, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the allotment of land had been made in flagrant violation of the Rajasthan Housing Board (Disposal of Properties) Regulations, 1970 (for short, ``the Regulation) and the rate fixed is much less than the rate at which it could have been allotted. The allotment has been made in collusion with the Chairman and other Officer-bearers of the Rajasthan Housing Board (for short, ``the Board) and it had been made without inviting any application from the public at large or the societies. Moreso, if the land had been allotted for the school, the society cannot be permitted to have the construction raised for community centre first.

(4). On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents have submitted that the writ petition itself is not maintainable as the society (allottee of the land) has not been impleaded as a party; office-bearers of the Board, with whose the collusion the land had been allotted, have not been impleaded; the Chairman of the Board has been impleaded by name but no specific allegations of malafide or collusion against him have been made and merely a bald statement that the land had been allotted with his collusion is not enough to hold an inquiry or the issue of malafide; petitioner had never applied for allotment of the land in dispute or any other land; there is no statutory requirement for inviting the applications for allotment of the land to the society for the purpose of school etc.; petitioner has not claimed any relief for himself and he has merely asked for quashing the order of allotment, thus, no legal right of the petitioner has been infringed; moreso, the order of allotment has not been placed on record and what has been put therein is merely the resolution of the Board and not the order of allotment which is sought to be quashed; the societies has already invested a huge amount of nearly rupees forty lacs on constructions of school and community centre; the petition has been filed at a belated stage and it suffers from the delay and laches and to settle the political score using the court as a forum, therefore, it amounts to abuse of the process of the court and as such the petition is liable to be rejected.

(5). I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

(6). As large number of issues have been raised, it is desirable to deal with them one by one.

(1) Non-impleadment of Society-Allottees of the land :-

Admittedly, the society, in whose favour the land stood allotted, has not been impleaded as a party. Large number of other persons, who are office-bearers of the society, have been impleaded. But the question does arise as to whether even if the judgment is delivered in favour of the petitioner, would it be binding on the said society and whether in such circumstanc

Click Here to Read the rest of this document