The court upheld the legality of land allotment procedures under the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, affirming that similar processes for both parties negate claims of impropriety.

Order :

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 21.02.2023 passed by the Additional District Collector, Bhilwara in Revision Petition No.122/2020 whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioners was rejected.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent No.4 was allotted plot No.2 situated at Sukhadia Nagar, Gram Panchayat, Sakkargarh, Tehsil Jahajpur District Bhilwara dehors the law. Learned counsel submits that no procedure as envisaged under the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 has been followed by the respondent Gram Panchayat while allotting the plot in question to the respondent No.4. He submits that the plot in question has been allotted to the respondent No.4 only on the ground that he is brother of the Sarpanch, who issued the allotment order. Learned counsel submits that the revisional authority has committed an error while rejecting the revision petition filed by the petitioners. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition petition filed by the petitioners may be allowed while quashing the order dated 21.02.2023 passed by the revisional authority and the allotment order passed in favour of the respondent No.4 may be quashed.

4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.4 submits that the revisional authority has taken into consideration all the contentions raised before it. He submits that the land ad-joining to the land of respondent No.4 has been allotted to the petitioners by following due procedure of law and the same procedure which was followed while passing allotment order in favour of the petitioners. He also submits that the findings recorded by the revisional court are perfectly justified as the plot has been allotted to the respondent No.4 after following due process of law. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition filed by the petitioners may be dismissed.

5. I have considered the submissions made at the bar and also gone through the relevant record of the case including the order dated 21.02.2023 passed by the Additional District Collector, Bhilwara.

6. It is true that the allotment order was passed in favour of the petitioners in the year 1963. Learned Revisional Authority has also taken into consideration that the Gram Panchayat has followed the due procedure, while passing allotment order with respect to the plot in question allotted in favour of the respondent No.4, which is akin to the procedure, which was adopted while issuing Pattas to the petitioners. It is also noted that the revisional authority has come to the conclusion after deliberating the issue in detail that the entire procedure and rules were followed while passing the allotment order in favour of the petitioners and the respondent No.4.

7. The argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners that proper procedure has not been followed while passing allotment order in favour of the respondent No.4 is noted to be rejected on the ground that in the similar fashion by adopting similar procedure, the pattas have been issued to the petitioners. Therefore, it is not open for the petitioners to challenge the allotment order issued to the respondent No.4. In view of the discussion made above, this court does not find any illegality or infirmity committed by the Revisional Authority while passing the order dated 21.02.2023. Consequently, the writ petition filed by the petitioners is dismissed being devoid of any force and the order dated 21.02.2023 passed by the Additional Collector, Bhilwara is upheld.