JAGABANDHU JENA Vs. LAND ALLOTMENT COMMITTEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition the petitioners seek to challenge the allotment of Government lands in the civil township of Rourkela to be in contravention of the rules framed by the State Government for the purpose. A set of administrative instructions styled as "Rules for Allotment of Government Lands in the Rourkela Civil Township" (hereinafter called 'the Rules') have been issued by the State Government for the purpose of making allotment of government lands in the Civil Township of Rourkela. Under the said rules a land allotment committee (hereinafter called 'the Committee') comprising of the Commissioner, the Collector of Sundargarh, the Town Planner, the Director of Industries and the Additional District Magistrate of Sundargarh has been constituted. The Committee is vested with the power to receive applications from the public for allotment of lands, consider the same and select the applicants considered most deserving. According to the procedure laid down in the rules the Additional District Magistrate of Rourkela who is the Member-Secretary of the Committee, is to enquire either himself or through any of the Subordinate Revenue Officers into the contents of the applications and such other matters as are relevant to the question of allotment of land and draw up lists of allottees whom he considers most deserving and place the same before the committee within a period of thirty days from the last date for receipt of applications. Thereafter, the Committee shall consider the names of the allottees recommended by the Additional District Magistrate along with the names not recommended and after such enquiries as they consider necessary draw up final lists of allottees for land for different purposes within a period of fifteen days from the date of consideration. R.7(2) expressly provides that while considering the lists mentioned above, the Committee shall abide by the principle enumerated in R. 4. The decision of the Committee is appealable to the State Government in the Revenue Department.

(2.) Though the petitioners have taken various grounds in their writ petition, on ultimate analysis, the gist of their complaint is that while making selection of the allottees the Committee has failed to act in accordance with the provisions of the rules and particularly the order of priority laid down in R.4(f) has not been observed inasmuch as some of the petitioners who come within category No. 1 have not been included in the list while applicants coming within lower category have been selected. The petitioners further contend that the reasons given by the Committee for rejecting in limine the applications of the petitioners are wholly irrelevant and extraneous. On these grounds the petitioners pray for quashing the allotment made by the opposite parties.

(3.) The opposite parties in their counter-affidavit while denying the allegations made in the writ petition have taken the stand that the petitioners have no vested right to get allotment of government land and even assuming that there has been some violation of the provisions of the rules which are nothing but a set of administrative instructions, the petitioners are not entitled to enforce the same in a Court of law and no relief can be founded on the said rules. They assert that the matter of allotment of plots has been fairly and properly dealt with by the Committee and the selection of allottees has been made keeping in view the larger interest of the public. They, however, admit the factual position that without exhausting all the valid applications in category-1 the Committee has considered and accepted applications under lower categories. So far as the reason for rejecting the applications of the petitioners are concerned the relevant portion of the counter-affidavit is quoted as under: