1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.902/08 Bajrang & Ors. Vs. Board of Revenue & Ors. Date of order : 4/2/2008. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri A.K. Bajpai for the petitioners. ****** Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. The petitioners have challenged the order passed by the SDO, Kekri dated 5.2.07 and that of Board of Revenue dated 14.11.07. By the order dated 5.2.07, the SDO had allotted two hectares of land for establishment of Government Middle School as per the resolution of the Gram Panchayat, Junia. In fact, that allotment was made as per the provisions of Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Unoccupied Government Agricultural Land 2 for construction of School, College, Dispensaries, Dharamshala and other buildings of public utility) Rules, 1963. The aforesaid instructions are based on a Government order issued on 20.7.63. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that in clause (2) of the aforesaid instructions, the maximum limit of allotment of land to respondent no.4 school was only 2 acres whereas in excess thereof land measuring 2 hectares has been alloted. It was argued that the petitioners are in possession over the land for many years. Learned counsel however in the course of arguments has shown the entry of the petitioners' possession of Svt. 2058 to 2064 in the revenue record which is corresponding to the year 2001, whereas the allotment to the school has been made in the year 2007. In any case, the petitioners merely claim 3 to be in possession, but without any authority of law, therefore their status cannot be better than a trespasser. Contention of the petitioners that they have been in possession of the land in dispute for last 70-80 years, has not been found substantiated by any of the authorities below. At the instance of such a party, the argument that excess land has been allotted to the school, which is admittedly for public purpose of a school, cannot be made basis for cancellation of allotment made. I therefore do not find any error in the approach taken by the Board of Revenue. The writ petition is therefore dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. RS/