1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5447/09 Gayasuddin vs. Divisional Commissioner, Kota Division, Kota & Ors. Date of order : 4/5/2009. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Sudarshan Laddha for the petitioner. ****** This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order passed by the Additional Collector, Kota and Divisional Commissioner, Kota by which the allotment made to the petitioner of the disputed land was set aside. Shri Sudarshan Laddha, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the site plan at Annexure-6 and has submitted that the land in dispute is not a land of public way and it is lying in front of the house of the petitioner and therefore it should be sold to the petitioner as a strip of land in terms of Rule 23 of the Rajasthan Municipalities (Disposal of Urban Land) Rules, 1974. Learned counsel submitted that the learned Appellate Authority and Divisional 2 Authority have both failed to appreciate that the land which was measuring 30 feet x 10 feet adjacent to the house of the petitioner was a strip of land and it could safely been sold to the petitioner in terms of Rule 23. Learned counsel relied on the judgement of this Court in Govind Prasad vs. Nagar Parishad, Kota & Ors.-2000 (1) WLC (Raj.) 337 to argue that the Collector have no authority to set aside the allotment by subsequently reviewing his own order. Upon considering of the arguments aforesaid and perusing the order passed by the Additional Collector as well as Divisional Commissioner, I find that both the authorities have concurrently held that land in dispute was part of the public way and that allotting such land to the petitioner would reduce width of the public way to just 10 feet, which is otherwise 16 feet. This is a factual finding recorded by authorities below. Learned counsel sought to press his submissions with the help of the site plan which according to him was prepared by the Municipal Council itself to show that the land in fact is adjacent to 3 the house of the petitioner and was not the land of public way. Although, perusal of the aforesaid site plan indicates that the land is adjacent to the house of the petitioner but apparently a public way also passes adjacent to the same land. If the authorities below were satisfied that the allotment of the land to the petitioner would reduce width of the public way from 16 to 10 feet, this Court cannot interfere with such a finding of fact. Even otherwise, the Municipal Council had no legal authority to sell the land of public way as held by division bench in Baltej Singh & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.-2007 (2) RLR 257. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. RS/