[2026:RJ-JD:3337]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11195/2023 Narayan Singh S/o Sang Singh, Aged About 40 Years, By Cast Rajput R/o Khirjakhas Tehsil Shergarh District Jodhpur Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Commissioner Colonization, Bikaner, Rajasthan.

2. The Allotment Officer Cum Deputy Commissioner, Colonization Ignp. Nachana District Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.

3. Tehsildar, Colonization, Ignp Nachana-Ii District Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.

4. Hawa Singh S/o Ramkaran, By Cast Jat R/o Sulkhania Bada, Tehsil - Rajgarh District Churu, Rajasthan.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sharwan Siongh Nirban For Respondent(s) : Mr. A.R. Godara HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL BENIWAL

Order

20/01/2026

1. The matter comes upon an application (I.A. No.01/2025)

seeking early hearing of the matter.

2. Considering the submissions made in the application, the same is allowed and the matter is taken up for hearing today itself and with the consent of the parties, the matter is finally heard.

3. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 4, at the outset, submits that he has filed reply to the writ petition. While arguing on the writ petition, it is contended that the writ petition has been filed challenging the allotment order dated 27.06.2023 (Annexure-6). It is submitted that the said allotment order was issued under the Rajasthan Colonization (Allotment and Sale of Government Land in Indira Gandhi Canal Colony Area) Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules of 1975"). It is further submitted that under Rule 23 of the said Rules, a remedy of appeal before the Colonization Commissioner is provided, followed by a remedy of revision before the Board of Revenue against the order passed by the Colonization Commissioner. It is contended that in view of the efficacious alternative statutory remedy being available, the writ petition itself deserves to be dismissed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently opposes the submissions made on behalf of the respondents, however, he is not in a position to refute the fact that a remedy of appeal is available under Rule 23 of the Rules of 1975. It is contended that, as a matter of fact, the allotment earlier made in the year 1999 ought to have been automatically cancelled on account of non-

payment of the complete amount.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

6. The objection raised by learned counsel for the private respondents with regard to the availability of an alternative statutory remedy is required to be examined at first. Rule 23 of the Rules of 1975 is reproduced as under:

"23. Appeal and Revision.-

(1) Any person aggrieved by an order passed by an Allotting Authority may within 30 days from the date of such order, appeal to the Colonisation Commissioner.

(2) Any person aggrieved by a final order of the Colonisation Commissioner whether passed in appeal or otherwise may within 60 days of the date of such order, file revision of the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan."

7. The Rule specifically provides that any person aggrieved by an order passed by the Allotting Authority may prefer an appeal before the Colonization Commissioner within a period of 30 days.

8. In view of the specific statutory remedy being available, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present writ petition. Resultantly, the writ petition is therefore, dismissed on the ground of availability of an efficacious alternative remedy under Rule 23 of the Rules of 1975. Liberty is, however, granted to the petitioner to approach the Colonisation Commissioner by availing the remedy of appeal under Rule 23 of the Rules of 1975.

9. Needless to observe that if such an appeal is filed along with an application seeking condonation of delay, the period during which the petitioner has pursued the present writ petition shall be excluded for the purpose of computing limitation.

10. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the interim order in the present writ p