The court upheld the validity of land allotment under the Rajasthan Colonization Rules, confirming the authority of the Additional Commissioner to reject cancellation applications based on existing notifications.

ORDER :

Vinit Kumar Mathur, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 01.07.2013 passed by the Additional Commissioner Colonization (Vigilance), Bikaner, whereby, the application preferred by the petitioners under Rule 22 (3) of the Rajasthan Colonization (Allotment and Sale of the Government Land in Indira Gandhi Canal Project) Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules of 1975’) was rejected.

3. Briefly noted the facts in the present writ petition are that the private respondents were having a khatedari land in Tehsil Pugal, District Bikaner. The land of the private respondents was acquired by the State Government and in view of the acquisition of the land, vide allotment order dated 18.05.2001, the private respondents were allotted a land in Bajju, Tehsil Kolayat, District Bikaner on an application preferred by them before the Additional Commissioner, Colonization, IGNP, Chhattargarh, Bikaner.

4. The petitioners, who are the residents of Bajju, have assailed the allotment of the land to the private respondents by way of filing an application under Rule 22 (3) of the Rules of 1975 before the Additional Commissioner Colonization (Vigilance), Bikaner. The application preferred by the petitioners was considered and the same was rejected by the Additional Commissioner Colonization (Vigilance), Bikaner vide order dated 01.07.2013. The order dated 01.07.2013 was challenged by the petitioners before the Board of Revenue by way of filing a revision petition and the Board of Revenue vide its order dated 12.04.2024 has rejected the same. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently submits that the application for cancellation of the allotment filed by the petitioners has wrongly been rejected without considering the correct legal and factual position. He further submits that the learned Additional Commissioner Colonization (Vigilance), Bikaner has rejected the application on the ground that the private respondents have been allotted the land as per the notification dated 04.10.1999/29.03.2001. He also submits that the notification dated 04.10.1999/29.03.2001 is not in existence and the same has not been placed on record by any of the parties before any of the authorities below. He further submits that the reliance placed by learned Additional Commissioner Colonization (Vigilance), Bikaner on the notification dated 04.10.1999/29.03.2001 is misplaced.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the Additional Commissioner Colonization (Vigilance), Bikaner has also held that the allotment order passed in favour of the private respondents can be challenged only before the State Government or before the High Court by way of filing an appeal or revision and therefore, the Additional Commissioner Colonization (Vigilance), Bikaner is not competent to deal with the matter. He further submits that in the similar lines, the Board of Revenue has also reiterated the findings while rejecting the revision petition filed by the petitioners.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the land which has been allotted to the private respondents is in green belt area and therefore, the same could not have been allotted to them. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition may be allowed and the allotment order made in favour of the private respondents may be quashed and set aside.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the allotment order of the land has correctly been passed by the State Government keeping in mind notification dated 04.10.1999/29.03.2001. Learned counsel has produced before this Court the notification dated 04.10.1999/29.03.2001. Learned counsel further submits that after issuance of the initial notification/order dated 28.08.1998, the lands notified vide notifications/orders dated 04.10.1999 and 29.03.2001 were included for allotment and since the private r