Smt. Jatan Devi vs State of Rajasthan and Others

Mohammad Rafiq, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

Contention of learned Counsel for Petitioner is that learned District Collector has erred in law in cancelling allotment made in favour of Petitioner after three years. It is argued that land in dispute was not falling within the land already allotted to Government Ayurvedic Hospital. This is beyond the road dividing the hospital and the plot allotted to the Petitioner. Learned Counsel argued that Petitioner is a landless woman and that she has no other house. Case of Petitioner is squarely falling within purview of Rule 158 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996. The committee of the Panchayat has also made inspection of the site and thereafter submitted its report. Learned Counsel in this connection also referred to resolution of Gram Panchayat (Annexure-5) to show that the land did not belong to Ayurvedic Hospital.

Per contra, Shri Jinesh Jain, learned Government Counsel, opposed writ petition and submitted that land was not available for allotment to Petitioner. This land, in fact, had already been allotted to Government Ayurvedic Hospital. Besides, Petitioner was not landless woman; she already had a house. She did not fall in any of categories mentioned in Rule 158 of the Rules of 1996. Neither she belong to Scheduled Caste, Scavengers, Scheduled Tribes, Backward Classes, Village Artisans nor is she a landless woman. She could not have been allotted the land. Procedure for allotment of the land as mentioned in the Rules was thus not followed. Report of Panchs also does not mention that she is landless woman and belong to Scheduled Caste, Scavengers, Scheduled Tribes, Backward Classes, Village Artisans or is a landless woman. There were so many violations of the Rules of 1996 and therefore District Collector was justified in cancelling the allotment.

On hearing learned Counsel for parties and considering the stand of Respondents and especially the fact that Petitioner already had another land and that she does not fall in any of categories mentioned in Rule 158 of the Rules of 1996 and land was already allotted to Government Ayurvedic Hospital, I do not find any infirmity in the order of District Collector.

Writ petition is therefore dismissed.