1 4 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4542/1996. Gopal Gaushala Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Order :: 28th July 2009. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. Vijay Bishnoi, for the petitioner. Mr. Sandeep Bhandawat, Government Counsel. Mr. Mukesh Rajpurohit, for the respondent No.4. ... BY THE COURT: The petitioner, said to be a charitable institution established in Svt. Year 1967 for the purpose of keeping breeding, rearing, and maintaining cattle, has filed this writ petition questioning the orders dated 10.07.1996 (Annex.8) and 15.11.1996 (Annex.10) as issued by the State Government and the consequential orders dated 19.11.1996 (Annex.11) and 20.11.1996 (Annex.12) as issued by the Collector, Churu. By the order dated 10.07.1996 (Annex. 8), the State Government in its revenue department proceeded to approve taking out 25 bighas of land from khasra No. 1546 at Sujangarh that was comprised of 30 bighas and 6 biswas of gair mumkin gochar (pasture) land, for being allotted to the respondent No.4, Sona Devi Sethia Girls College, Sujangarh 2 under the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Unoccupied Government Agricultural Lands for the Construction of the Schools, Colleges, Dispensaries, Dharamshalas and Other Buildings of Public Utilities) Rules, 1963. The petitioner, however, objected against such allotment and handing over the land in possession of the said school with the assertions that the land in question had been in its possession and control. The petitioner has averred that by the order dated 16.09.1996 (Annex.7), the State Government stayed the operation of the aforesaid order dated 10.07.1996 but then, suddenly by the order dated 15.11.1996 (Annex.10), the State Government proceeded to vacate the interim order and the Collector, Churu proceeded to issue the order for allotment of the land in question to the said school on 19.11.1996 (Annex.11) and further issued directions to the Tehsildar on 20.11.1996 (Annex. 12) to hand over its possession to the said school. This Court entertained this writ petition against the orders aforesaid on 17.12.1996 but then, refused the prayer for interim relief with the observations that construction, if any, shall remain subject to the final decision of the writ petition. 3 The respondents have filed a reply contending, inter alia, that the petitioner has no case in its favour and the State Government vacated the stay order after properly considering the representation and the other correspondence. It is also submitted that the petitioner is having enough land for maintaining the cattle. For the order proposed to be passed in the matter, it does not appear necessary to dilate upon all the factual aspects of the matter; however, having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, it appears appropriate that the matter be remitted for consideration of the Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan in its revenue department. It is not in dispute that after the proposition came up for making allotment of the land to the respondent No.4, the petitioner did make representation/s whereupon, the operation and effect of the order dated 10.07.1996 was kept in abeyance by the State Government by its order dated 16.09.1996 (Annex. 7). However, such a stay order was vacated with a non-speaking order dated 15.11.1996 (Annex.10) and close on its heels were issued the orders dated 19.11.1996 and 20.11.1996 (Annexs. 11 & 12) by the Collector, Churu making and enforcing the allotment in favour of the respondent No.4. Having regard to the nature of dispute, this Court is of 4 opinion that when the State Government itself chose to entertain the representation/s made by the petitioner and stayed the execution of the earlier order dated 10.07.1996, it would have been in the fitness of things that before passing final order in the matter, an opportunity of hearing was extended to the petitioner; and the matter was decided by a speaking order stating the reasons. Though the respondents would suggest in the reply that the Government properly examined the record but the impugned order dated 15.11.1996 is totally bereft of reasons. Looking to the nature of the issue at hands, once the matter was taken up for consideration by the State Government on the representation/s of the petitioner, it was desirable that the decision was stated with a reasoned order after extending adequate opportunity to the relevant parties of making their submissions. Having regard to the facts that this writ petition has remained pending since the year 1996 and that this Court refused the prayer for interim relief on 17.12.1996; and having regard to the surrounding circumstances, though it does not appear appropriate to annul the orders in challenge in this writ petition but this Court is of opinion that interest of justice shall be served if the issues as involved in the representation/s made by the petitioner are remitted to the Secretary to 5 Government of Rajasthan in its revenue department for his considered and reasoned decision after hearing the parties. Therefore, this writ petition is allowed only to the extent that the representation/s as made by the petitioner shall stand remitted to the Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan in its revenue department, who may pass a reasoned order thereupon, after hearing the petitioner and the respondent No.4. The parties present before this Court shall stand at notice to appear before the concerned Secretary on 31.08.2009, who shall be expected to take a considered decision in the matter as expeditiously as possible. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no orders as to costs of this writ petition. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. //Mohan//