SBCWP No.1979/10. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1979/2010. Tej Singh & Anr. Vs. Additional District Collector Sawaimadhopur & Ors. Date of Order:- December 16, 2010. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Nitin Jain for the petitioners. Shri Lokesh Sharma for respondent No.2. ******* BY THE COURT:- This writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the Additional District Collector Sawaimadhopur dated 14/12/2009 whereby revision petition filed by respondent No.2 has been allowed and the allotment made in favour of the petitioner has been set-aside. Contention of the learned counsel for petitioners is that the learned Additional District Collector while setting the allotment, ignored the fact that Rule 156 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Raj Rules, 1996 was not applicable in the fact that the land in dispute was measuring 77.78 square yard, which was strip of land and he was only applicant and therefore as per Rule 156, it can be allotted by way of negotiation. It is denied that respondent No.2 was already in possession over the same land. Learned SBCWP No.1979/10. 2 counsel in support of his argument has sought to rely on the map of the disputed land submitted by him in his application Annexure-2 and the map (Annexure-6) of the land, on the basis of which allotment was demanded by respondent No.2. It is contended that finding that only one Panch has signed the inspection report is also factually incorrect. In this connection, he relied on the report dated 26/2/2008 (Ann.3), which was signed by the five panchs. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that land is the same land for which application of respondent No.2 was already pending. Confusion in the two maps is created because in the map (Ann.2) submitted by the petitioners, Northern side has been shown at the top whereas, in the copy of the map (Ann.6) the name of respondent No.2, at Western side has been shown at top. It is also submitted that in the report at Ann.3, there is sign of only one Panch namely; Heeralal Meena, who was member of the committee and other Panchs namely; Mohan Singh, Puniram and Gyarsilal have not signed the report. In case there are more than one applicant, Rule 156 would not be applicable even if land in dispute is a strip of land. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, I find that Rule 156(1)(d) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Raj Rules, 1996 gives power to the Gram Panchayat to transfer any strip of land by way of sale by private negotiation but in that case, condition precedent is that there should be SBCWP No.1979/10. 3 only one applicant. Comparison of two maps referred to supra show that on Western side, adjacent to the dispute land, there is 'tikkiwal dharamshala' and therefore there is no manner of doubt that the same land for which respondent No.2 had earlier applied, was allotted to the petitioner. Additional District Collector has passed a reasoned order after examining the report to hold that there was violation of Rules 145, 146 and 147 and other rules of the Rajasthan Panchayat Raj Rules, 1996. The proper course in such matters should have been that in case there are more than one applicant, to sale the land by way of auction in terms of Rule 156. I do not find any infirmity in the impugned- order. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. The money which has been deposited by the petitioners may be refunded to them. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ) J. anil