RANG LAL MEENA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution of INdia the petitioner who is member of the Schedule Tribe and who has got no house in village Mandawari, Tehsil Lalsoth, District Dausa, has sought the relief of writ of mandamus for allotment of land measuring 100' x 100' which has wrongly Been allotted to respondent No. 4, the then Sarpanch and Rambilas respondent No. 5 with the prayer to quash the allotment of land made in favour of respondent No. 4 and has also challenged the decision of village panchayat dated 5. 9. 1977 and the sale- letter dated 11. 6. 1968 vide Ex. 1 and 2 respectively. The petitioner has further sought the relief of writ of prohibition on the ground that the petitioner who is in possession of 100' x 100' of land for a very long time, shall not be dispossessed from the said land. The petitioner has further sought the relief of any other appropriate writ, direction or order which may be issued by this court by setting aside the impugned order, dated 24. 3. 1984 passed by learned Additional Collector Dausa with a direction that the petitioner be held entitled to the allotment of the land in accordance with the provisions of Rule 66 of the Panchayat & Nyaya Panchayat (General) Rules, 1961.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to the filing of this writ petition briefly stated, are that the petitioner is a resident of village Mandawari Tehsil Lalsoth, District Dausa and is by caste Meena and as such belongs to Scheduled Tribe of Rajasthan State. It has been contended in the writ petition that the petitioner has got no residential house in the village and as such gram-panchayat Mandawari has been exploiting the petitioner with a view to deprive him of the possession of the land in question. THE aforesaid piece of land of which the petitioner is claiming possession is situated in western side of land of Nemichand Jain and at some distance on the same track, Rambilas respondent No. 5 is having his house and in the same vicinity one Munsi Lal Soni son of Narain Soni Ex Sarpanch of village Mandawari is also having his land. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that Munsi Lal Soni, respondent No. 5, was holding his post as Sarpanch in the years 1974-77 and during the relevant period, the land measuring 173' x 35' x 41' total measuring 6574 sq. feet at the rate 4 NP per squire feet was allotted to the petitioner and the petitioner had paid in all Rs. 2621. 96 Tor the allotment of his said land to the gram-panchayat, Mandawari. It has been further stated by the petitioner that respondent No. 4 has got three double storied houses and two shops in village Mandawari and that these houses and shops were also existing before allotment of disputed land to the petitioner. It has been further contended that since the petitioner is from Scheduled Tribe having no house in the village, had requested the gram-panchayat to allot a piece of land measuring 100' x 100' on the same basis as allotted to respondent No. 4, the then Sarpanch and Rambilas respondent No. 5 but his application was rejected. On number of occasions the petitioner had requested the gram-panchayat to supply him the copy of the rejection order but the same has not been given to him and as such he had no alternative except to file a revision petition before the Collector. THE petitioner has further alleged discrimination by the authorities qua other applicants as referred to above since on the one hand it is said that the land is required to be given to the petitioner by observing formula of rules 65 and 66 of the Rules of 1961 to Munsi Lal Sarpanch as well as Rambilas, respondent No. 5 who were allotted land in terms of allotment order, dated 6. 5. 1975 by gram- panchayat, Mandawari (total land given to him 1350 sq. feet @ 4 NP per squire feet) and on similar basis gram-panchayat had allotted land to Munsi Lal Soni, respondent No. 4 vide order Ex. 3, but the petitioner was left out for allotment of the land in question. It has been further contended by the petitioner that the gram panchayat had rejected the petitioner's application on 30. 7. 1977. Subsequently the petitioner had sent a notice for demand of justice to respondent Nos. 1 to 3 on 19. 4. 1984 vide Ex. 6 but to no effect. THE petitioner has challenged the impugned orders of gram-panchayat and Additional Collector, Dausa dated 24. 3. 84 which are illegal, unjustified, discriminatory and perverse on the ground that the impugned orders are contrary to the record of the case and that since the case of the petitioner for allotment of land cannot be distinguished with the case of Ex Sarpanch Munsi Lal, respondent No. 4 and in view of the applicability of Rule 266 clause (c) which is applicable to the petitioner, the land could be allotted to the petitioner on the basis of private negotiations whereas the land ought not to have been allotted to respondent No. 4 Munsi Lal under Rule 262 of the Rules of 1961 and that since the petitioner does not have residential house in his own name in village Mandawari, due consideration under Rule 266 was required to be given in the matter.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the parties have been heard at length by this court and they have also filed their written submissions.