HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13056/2025 Sushma Agrawal W/o Sh. Vishnu Agrawal, Aged About 60 Years, Editor- Dainik Adhunik Ajmer, Diggi Bazar, Ajmer, R/o House No. 1643, Near Central Academy School, Patrakar Colony, Ajmer (Rajasthan). ----Petitioner Versus Ajmer Development Authority, Through Its Secretary, Todarmal Marg, Ajmer. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Swadeep Singh Hora with Ms. Amulya Jemini For Respondent(s) : JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 08/09/2025 1. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 07.04.2025, by which the application submitted by the petitioner seeking allotment of land for the purpose of establishment of a printing press has been rejected by the respondent-authority. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner as well as two similarly situated persons applied for allotment of the land for the same purpose. The application submitted by the petitioner was rejected in a cursory manner vide order dated 26.02.2014 while the application submitted by two other similarly situated press agencies/persons i.e. Dainik Rajyadesh and Alfaaz Today was allowed and land was allotted (2 of 5) [CW-13056/2025] to them by the respondent-authority. Counsel submits that aggrieved by the order dated 26.02.2014, a revision petition under Rule 30 of the Rajasthan Improvement Trust (Disposal of Urban Land) Rules, 1974 (for short, ‘the Rules of 1974’) was preferred before the Divisional Commissioner and the said revision petition was allowed vide judgment dated 11.08.2021 and the matter was remanded back to the Commissioner Ajmer Development Authority, Ajmer for passing fresh order. Counsel submits that this time, the application submitted by the petitioner has been rejected on 07.04.2025 indicating therein that as per the Land Allotment Policy, 2015 (for short, ‘the Policy of 2015’), the allotment cannot be made in his favour for allotment of land for the purpose of printing press. Counsel submits that the Policy of 2015 cannot be made applicable upon the petitioner, as the petitioner applied under the old Policy of the year 1998, hence, interference of this Court is warranted. Counsel submits that when after remand, the matter was not decided by the Ajmer Development Authority, a contempt petition was preferred before the Divisional Commissioner and during pendency of the said contempt petition, the order impugned dated 07.04.2025 was passed and subsequently, the contempt petition submitted by the petitioner was rejected by the Divisional Commissioner vide order dated 30.04.2025 by holding that the application of the petitioner was rightly rejected, in terms of the provisions, contained under the Policy of 2015. (3 of 5) [CW-13056/2025] 3. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on the record. 4. Perusal of the record indicates that the petitioner submitted an application for allotment of land for the purpose of establishment of a printing press for newspaper, pursuant to the policy pertaining to the year 1998. The aforesaid application submitted by the petitioner was rejected by the respondent-authority vide order dated 26.02.2014, against which a revision petition under Rule 30 of the Rules of 1974 was submitted. The revision petition was allowed and the matter was remitted back to the authority vide order dated 11.08.2021. It appears that when the aforesaid order was not complied with by the authority, then a contempt petition was preferred by the petitioner before the Divisional Commissioner. During pendency of the aforesaid contempt petition, the order impugned has been passed on 07.04.2024, by which the application submitted by the petitioner has been rejected while giving reference of the Policy of 2015. 5. After considering the aforesaid contempt petition, preferred by the petitioner, the same was rejected by the Divisional Commissioner holding that the application submitted by the petitioner was rightly rejected. In the considered opinion of this Court, the order dated 07.04.2025 is revisable under Rule 30 of the Rules of 1974, hence, under these circumstances, the petitioner cannot be allowed to bypass the jurisdiction of the Revisional Authority and straightaway approach this Court by way of filing the instant writ petition (4 of 5) [CW-13056/2025] under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The only apprehension in the mind of the petitioner is that once a decision has already been given by the Revisional Authority i.e. Divisional Commissioner, while rejecting the contempt petition, submitted by the petitioner vide order dated 30.04.2025, that the application submitted by the petitioner was rightly rejected by the respondent authority in the Policy of 2015, the same shall come into his way while filing revision petition. 6. In the considered opinion of this Court, the Divisional Commissioner was not having any authority to pass such observation, while deciding the contempt petition submitted by the petitioner, for non-compliance of the order dated 11.08.2021. The issue was confined to non-compliance of the order dated 11.08.2021, hence, under these circumstances, such observation was not warranted. 7. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the instant writ petition stands disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to file a revision petition under Rule 30 of the Rules of 1974 before the Divisional Commissioner. The Divisional Commissioner is directed to decide the revision petition, on its merits, considering the fact that the petitioner has submitted the application for allotment of land, as per the Policy of 1998 and not as per the Policy of 2015. The Divisional Commissioner is further directed to decide the revision petition on its merits, without being influenced by the observations made in the order dated 30.04.2025. (5 of 5) [CW-13056/2025] 8. Needless to observe that all possible endeavours would be made by the Divisional Commissioner to decide the revision petition expeditiously as early as possible, preferably within a period of four months from the date of filing of the revision petition. 9. The stay application and all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J KuD/9