1 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1289/2009. Rana Ram Vs. State & Ors. Date of Order :: 11th September 2009. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr.B.L.Choudhary, for the petitioner. Mr.Hemant Choudhary, Govt.Counsel for the respondents. .... BY THE COURT: The petitioner has filed this writ petition with the submissions that he was allotted in total 12 bighas of agriculture land comprised in Murabba Nos. 93/20 and 93/12 at Chak 13 KLD 'A' and was given Khatedari Sanad; and that he applied for allotment of adjacent 13 bighas of land comprised in Murabba No. 93/12 as a small patch under Rule 14 of the Rajasthan Colonization( Allotment and Sale of Government Land in the Indira Gandhi Canal Colony Area) Rules, 1975 but then, his application was not being considered. The petitioner has prayed for directions to the Allotting Authority to allot the land as applied for. A co-ordinate Bench considered this writ petition on 17th February 2009 and finding that the original application itself was available with the petitioner, passed the following order:- “Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. After perusing the entire record of the case and hearing arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner, a glaring fact has come to the notice of this Court that the petitioner is seeking direction to the allotting authority for deciding his application and he has placed on record photo stat copy of Annex. 4, the application which is said to have been filed before the allotting authority, Rajasthan Canal Project. When learned counsel for the petitioner was asked how 2 he obtained the copy of the application, learned counsel for the petitioner has produced before the Court original application which is said to be pending before the allotting authority, in which, there is report of the Patwari. I am unable to understand how the application itself is lying with the petitioner which has been produced before the Court. It is a case in which serious action is required to be taken against the erring person including the petitioner as well as Patwari. While taking on record the original application, it is ordered to issue notice to the petitioner, so also, to the Patwari, TDR Khajuwala with direction that both these persons shall remain present before the Court and explain how the original application is lying with the petitioner and how the Patwari concerned without any direction from the allotting authority has made the report. Prima facie, it appears while seeking relief before this Court the petitioner has tried to file false writ petition before this Court. The Registry is directed to issue notice to the Patwari concerned through Magistrate of the area for securing presence of these two persons. Appropriate action shall be taken after obtaining explanation from both petitioner and Patwari concerned. The photo stat copy annexed to the writ petition be returned to learned counsel for the petitioner while retaining on record the original application.” The petitioner and the Patwari concerned have filed respective explanations essentially submitting that on the application as moved by the petitioner, a report was sought from the Patwari concerned and the application was given Dasti to the applicant for delivering to the Patwari concerned for appropriate report but the petitioner, an illiterate person, retained the original application and then, as advised, filed this writ petition without there being any ill-motive. Having examined the explanations submitted by the petitioner and the concerned Patwari and taking into account 3 the fact that the petitioner did produce the original application before the Court (placed as Annexure 4 in this petition), this Court is satisfied that the petitioner had no ill-motive in retaining the application; and the concerned Patwari was not aware that the application had been retained by the petitioner. The Government Counsel, in response to the query of Court, submits that the Tehsildar concerned asked for the report from the Patwari particularly regarding the status of the revenue record that was requisite for the purpose of processing the application further. So far the merit of this petition is concerned, this Court is clearly of opinion that the petitioner has unnecessarily approached this Court by way of this premature petition without permitting the authority concerned to take appropriate decision on the application moved by him. In the circumstance of the case, this petition deserves to be dismissed as premature. In the interest of justice, however, it appears appropriate that the original application (placed on the record as Annexure 4) be returned to the petitioner for being presented to the authority concerned for appropriate proceedings after the petitioner files a certified copy of the said application on the record. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed with the observations aforesaid. Notices issued to the petitioner and to the Patwari concerned are discharged. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. Bharti