HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5412/2001 Ramesh Chandra son of Asharfi Lal, aged about 45 years, resident of Shikohabad (Uttar Pradesh), presently C/o Jagdish Glass Industries, Hardeo Nagar, Dholpur (Raj.). ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan thorugh Chief Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Rajasthan). 2. District & Session Judge, Dholpur (Rajasthan). 3. District Collector, Dholpur (Rajasthan). 4. Tehsildar, Dholpur (Rajasthan). 5. Village Panchayat Rural Chhawani Distt. Dholpur (Rajasthan) through its Sarpanch. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Deepak Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Neeraj Batra, GC with Ms. Ruchika Sharma, Ms. Gunjan Chawla, Priyamvada Singh and Mr. Harshit Parashar JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 09/04/2025 1. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 09.04.1984 and 29.10.1994 passed by the respondents. 2. By passing the order dated 09.04.1984, the allotment made in favour of the petitioner dated 19.08.1981 has been cancelled and the land in question has been allotted to District Court, Dholpur for construction of Court Complex and residential houses for Judicial Officers. (2 of 3) [CW-5412/2001] 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the land in question was put to auction and in those auction proceedings, the allotment has been done to the petitioner by the Gram Panchayat under the Rajasthan Panchayat (General) Rules, 1961 vide order dated 19.08.1981. Counsel submits that prior to allotment of the aforesaid land to the petitioner, the procedure contained under the Rules of 1961 was followed and overlooking the material aspect of the matter, the impugned order dated 09.04.1984 has been passed and the petitioner’s land has been wrongly allotted to the District Court, Dholpur for construction of the Court building and residential houses for Judicial Officers, hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the State-respondents opposed the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the property in question was never put to auction under the provisions contained under Chapter 13 and Rules 256 to 265 of the Rules of 1961 and considering this factual aspect of the matter, the District Collector has rightly cancelled the allotment order dated 19.08.1981 and thereafter the said land in question was allotted to the District Court for the purpose of construction Court complex and residential houses for Judicial Officers. Counsel submits that no interim orders were passed in favour of the petitioner and during pendency of this writ petition, construction work has been completed and the Court premises is running and residential houses have been (3 of 3) [CW-5412/2001] constructed for the judicial officers, hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is not warranted and the petition is liable to the rejected. 5. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record. 6. Perusal of the entire record indicates that the whole claim of the petitioner is based on the allotment order dated 19.08.1981 made by the concerned Gram Panchayat, Chhawani, but looking to the fact that before allotment of the aforesaid land to the petitioner, the provisions contained under the Rules of 1961 were not followed and straightaway, allotment was done in favour of the petitioner illegally and this fact has been recorded by the Collector, Dholpur while passing the order dated 09.04.1984. The order passed by the Collector, Dholpur is a reasoned and speaking order, which needs no interference of this Court. Consequently, this Court finds that the order dated 29.10.1994 was also just and proper and same does not call for any interference. 7. As a consequence thereof, the instant writ petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed. 8. Pending application, if any, also stand dismissed. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J KuD/7