1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. :: J U D G M E N T :: 1. D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL(W)NO.119/2000 M/s. Pachak Foods(P)Ltd. Vs. UIT, Bikaner & Ors. 2. D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL(W)NO.1446/1999 Shivdeep Food Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. UIT, Bikaner & Ors. 3. D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL(W)NO.118/2000 M/s. Bikaneri Foods(P)Ltd. Vs. UIT, Bikaner & Ors. 4. D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL(W)NO.252/2000 Rajpurohit Youth Club Vs. UIT, Bikaner & Ors. 5. D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL(W)NO.363/2000 M/s. Marusthal Ceramics & Sanitary Ware Vs. UIT, Bikaner & ors. Date of Judgment :: 16-01-2008 HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. NARAYAN ROY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Mr. M.S. Singhvi, Mr. M.R. Singhvi, Mr. Ramit Mehta, Mr. Sajjan Singh, Mr. N.S. Acharya, for the appellants. Mr. B.R. Mehta, for the respondents. Mr. Shyam Ladhrecha, Government Advocate. All these five appeals since arise out of the common order have been heard together and they are being disposed of by this common order. Initially writ applications were filed by Urban Improvement Trust, Bikaner challenging the order passed by the Collector, Bikaner whereby and whereunder different pieces of land were allotted in favour of the appellants for setting up an industry. The writ applications were allowed on the ground that the Collector had no jurisdiction to settle pieces of land in favour of the beneficiaries as the lands pertaining to such settlement were already given in 2 possession of the UIT, Bikaner by virtue of a notification dated 18.11.1983. Besides this aspect of the matter, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Collector in Civil Writ No.4186/1997 fairly conceded that the question involved was squarely convered in favour of the writ petitioner by the judgment of this Court in Smt. Koshlaya Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., 1989 Vol.2 RLW 380. This however, was not disputed by learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents. The other writ applications accordingly were disposed of in the light of judgment rendered in Koshlaya Devi(Supra) and also in view of the concessions given by the contesting respondent-Collector of the District. The issue as it appears arose as to whether the lands already given in possession of the UIT, Bikaner could have been re-allotted by the Collector under the provisions of Section 92 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1956') and the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Industrial Areas allotment)Rules, 1959. From the pleadings of the parties, it appears that the land in question was allotted to the appellants by the Collector without approval of the same by the State Government as envisaged under the provisions under which he exercised the power. It is not in dispute that by virtue of the notification dated 18.11.1983, the land in question was placed at the disposal of the local authority i.e. UIT, Bikaner and thus, in view of Section 102 A of the Act of 1956, no fresh allotment could have been made. At the same time, it is also not disputed that before passing an order for fresh allotment in favour of the appellants, the Collector had taken cognizance of the notification of 3 the year 1983 giving the lands at the disposal of the local authority nor any opportunity of hearing was given to the UIT. The findings recorded by the learned Single Judge of this Court allowing the writ applications therefore, cannot be said to be contrary to facts or in violation of law. No other materials whatsoever have been placed before us to demonstrate that the Collector with due permission of the State Government has made the settlement in favour of the beneficiaries nor any document was produced before us to show that subject to the general orders of the State Government, the Collector had exercised the powers under Section 92 of the Act of 1956 and at the same time, the land which was put in possession of the UIT, Bikaner could not have been the subject matter of re-allotment in view of the provisions as referred to above. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case therefore, we do not find sufficient reasons to interfere with the orders impugned. These appeals accordingly are dismissed. [MOHAMMAD RAFIQ],J. [NARAYAN ROY],CJ. Praveen