MANPHOOL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Niyajuddin accepts notice on behalf of the State. Both the parties submit that the case may be decided at the admission stage.

(2.) THE contention of the petitioner is that the proceedings initiated by the Tehsildar and notice issued by him under S. 22 of the Rajasthan Colonisation Act hereinafter to be referred to as the Act may be quashed. Petitioner is at liberty to file objection before the Tehsildar and it is premature to hold whether the case of the petitioner fails within the preview of S. 22 of the Act or not. THE prayer of the petitioner that the notice issued under S. 22 of the Act may be quashed is rejected.

(3.) THE third submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the application for review cannot be rejected on the ground of time barred Clause (3) of Rule 4 reads as under:- "where an application as is referred to in sub-rule (1)has already been decided by any competent authority and the allotting authority finds that the allotment order passed on such application is inconsistent with the provisions of these rules, it shall, of its own motion, review the order and shall, after giving the affected person an opportunity of being heard, decide the application under an in accordance with the provisions of these rules". This rule provides that where the application as referred to under sub-rule (1) has already been decided by competent authority finds that the allotment order passed on such application is inconsistent with the provisions of these Rules, it shall on its own motion review the order passed and shall after giving the affected persons an opportunity of being heard decided the application under and in accordance with the provisions of these Rules. THE Rule is mandatory in nature and as has been held in Govind Ram's case (supra) referred above. Before Rule 4 (3) applies, there must be an allotment order passed in favour of any party. Unless there is an allotment order the question of inconsistency does not arise at all. THE counsel for the petitioner has not submitted that the land has been allotted to any person in contravention of these Rules. THE counsel for the petitioner may make a grievance that the land is allotted to the third party in contravention of the Rules and his case is not considered in accordance with the provisions of Rule 4 (3 ). THE learned counsel for the petitioner himself submits that the land has not been allotted to any one so far, so the Rule 4 clause (3) does not come into operation at all at this stage. It is observed that while making the proceedings for the allotment of the surplus land the authorities will take into consideration the provisions of Rule 4 clause (3) as well as Rule 13 clause 5 (b) and after taking into consideration the relevant provisions of Rule 7 and other provisions of law the allotment shall be made in accordance with the provisions of the law. With these observations the writ petition is dismissed summarily. .