G.M. LODHA, J.—Seemingly battle against Nepotism, favouritism and deprivation of landless from distribution of surplus land under ceiling laws, whether genuine or crocodile tears and trickery to retain possession by land owners is the pivot of real debate in this petition. ? 2. Hardly the ink of Honble Justice Shrimals pen has dried in penning the monograph on "Land Reforms", in which he made Government Advocates tall claim of distribution of this land to landless, the alleged third innings of this Land-owners Vs. Landless litigation was on the "docket" & Board of this Court, by the present writ having been filed on 19th July, 1982. Whether it is old wine in new bottle, is a serious question for Judicial adjudication. 3. The above author of "Land Reforms Monograph" has observed as under:- "Transfer of land made by land-holders having excess land than that of the ceiling limit prescribed under the law does not create any right in favour of the transferees and the plea of bonafide purchaser is not open to them. In Lekh Raj vs. State of Rajasthan S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 21 of 1982, decided on October 30, 1981 along with 53 writ petitions filed by transferors of Maharaja Kumar Prithvi Singh, I held that the Patta issued to the petitioners of these cases were ante dated. They were neither on stamps nor registered one and no right was created by them in favour of the holders of those Pattas. In those cases, it was also held that petitioners were guilty of laches and contemptuous conduct disentitled them to extraordinary remedy under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. Detailed scrutiny of these cases reveal that even highly placed persons change their stand and raise false pleas and put resistance to save and from being resumed and put obstacles in allotment of land to landless persons by issuing Benami pattas in favour of their employees and favourites. On the basis of the information given to the Court by the Government Advocate it can be said that this time the administrative machinery has been geared up properly. It is said that land measuring 1840 acres involved in the above noted cases, have been allotted to landless peasants by now" (1). 4. On the basis of the information given to the Court by the Government Advocate it can be said that this time the administrative machinery has been geared up properly. It is said that land measuring 1840 acres involved in the above noted cases, have been allotted to landless peasants by now" (1). 4. Gram Panchayat Village Mahawa, Tehsil Todabhim, District Sawai Madhopur, represented by Narainlal Sarpanch, has filed this writ petition against the apprehended and later on actual allotments, which were made on 25.6.82 and 30.6.82 of the agricultural land. The petitioner has made the following prayer:- "It is, therefore, prayed that your lordships may be pleased to accept this writ petition, issue a writ of certiorari, mandamus and prohibition, call for the record of the case and it may be declared that the initiation for the proceedings for allotment of land were all illegal, void and the notification dated 5.5 1982 and 30.6.1982 be quashed and set aside and the allotments made by cancelled and the Advisory Committee and the Sub-Divisional Officer be directed not to allot land measuring 627 Bighas-17 biswa in view of the two stay orders passed by the Government dated 12.8.1980 and 24.6.1982 and the Advisory Committee and the Sub-Divisional Officer be restrained from allotting land to any body which is Ghair Mumkin Talab and Ghair Mumkin land (uncultivable) without converting its category by the competent authority and for the rest of the land the Respondents be directed to invite fresh applications for allotment in accordance with law, and the persons in possession of 627 Bighas 17 Biswas of land may now be dispossessed and any other appropriate writ, direction or order be issued which your Lordships think proper." 5. The petitioner claims that he is filing this writ petition in his own capacity and also in representative capacity on behalf of the villagers of village Mahawa. 6. The land measuring 1940 Bighas consisting of Khasra numbers 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, to 20, 21, 23, 130, 1307 and 1309, situated in village Mahawa, Tehsil Toda Bhim was admittedly in the Jagir of Maharaj Kumar Prithvi Singh son of late Maharaja Mansingh of Jaipur. The petitioners case is that this land was given to different persons as tenants by Maharaj Kumar Prithvisingh and later on for an area of 627 Bighas and 17 Biswas the tenants became Khatedars. 7. The petitioners case is that this land was given to different persons as tenants by Maharaj Kumar Prithvisingh and later on for an area of 627 Bighas and 17 Biswas the tenants became Khatedars. 7. Proceedings under the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling of Agricultural Holdings Act, 1963 were taken against Maharaj Prithvi Singh and there was a chequered career of these proceedings, in which ultimately the transfers made by Maharaj Kumar Prithvi Singh were held to be invalid. 8. The petitioner in this case has claimed that by letter dated 12.8.80 stay order was granted by the Government, but in contravention of that the S.D.O., Hindon issued a declaration on 5.5.82 (Annexure-F) for allotment of land measuring 1940 Bighas & 18 Biswas situated in this village and invited applications under Ru!e 7 of the Allotment Rules mentioning that the application can be filed upto 21.5.82. 9. After the issue of the above proclamation, the petitioners case is that a stay order was again granted in respect of the land and the same was served on the Sub-Divisional Officer, who is Chairman of the Advisory Committee, but in spite of service of the stay order allotments were made on 25.6.82 and again on 30.6.82, to 365 persons, who according to the Advisory Committee were landless persons entitled to allotments. 10. The petitioner has challenged the above allotments on a number of grounds. Firstly, it was contended by Mr. Tewari learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the stay order of the Government for 627 Bighas of land, the S.D.O. was not competent to allot that part of the land. It was then contended that Shri Chet Ram Meena Minister in the State of Rajasthan acted malafidely and made illegal allotments on account of nepotism and favourism, as allotments were made illegally to his relatives and he himself was present in the meeting of 30.6 82. It was also argued that the place of allotment was changed, as instead of Panchayat Office the allotments were made at the residence of some relative of Shri Chetram Meena, and the village people could not go to the place for filing applications for allotment. It was also argued that the place of allotment was changed, as instead of Panchayat Office the allotments were made at the residence of some relative of Shri Chetram Meena, and the village people could not go to the place for filing applications for allotment. It was then argued that in any case the allotments were illegal, because they were made to minors and to persons who were not entitled to allotment and further they were made for an area for which allotments are prohibited under S. 16 of the Tenancy Act, because it is Ban Talab area. Mr. Tewari further argued that all these allotments were made in a surreptitious manner by fake proceedings, because there was no map or trace prepared mentioning individual khasra numbers and areas divided into various portions, and in the absence of the trace no allotments could have been made. Mr. Tewari, therefore, prayed that all the allotments should be cancelled, because in the meeting of 25.6.82 the petitioner Sarpanch wanted to make a descending note and according to the rules the proceedings cannot proceed. 11. Mr. M.I. Khan appearing for the respondents has controverted the above allegations of Mr. Tewari. According to him, this is the third inning in which an effort is being made by persons who want to retain the land which has been taken in ceiling as surplus land from Maharaj Kumar Prithvi Singh. Mr. Khan referred to two earlier judgments of this court, one of S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 221/81 Lekhraj v. State of Rajasthan & Others, decided on October 30, 1981 (1) in which writ petition No. 86/81 was filed by the present petitioner Narainlal son of Meghchand Meena, resident of village Mahawa. Mr. Khan pointed out that Narainlal Meena after the above judgment has only camouflaged his status by filing the writ petition on behalf of the Gram Panchayat, but the real object is to retain the land which has been declared surplus under the Ceiling Law. 12. Reference was also made to the judgment of D. B. Civil Special No. 33/82 Naharsingh v. State of Rajasthan, decided on 3 8.82 in which the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 30.10.81 was confirmed. 13. 12. Reference was also made to the judgment of D. B. Civil Special No. 33/82 Naharsingh v. State of Rajasthan, decided on 3 8.82 in which the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 30.10.81 was confirmed. 13. It appears that the Division Bench judgment dated 3.8.82 has confirmed the judgment of the Single Bench dated October 30,1981, referred to above, although only four persons filed the appeal out of 54, and these four persons were of village Kamalpura. 14. In the judgment of the learned Single Judge, it has been held that the State Government had taken vacant possession of the land in dispute on 19.2.75 vide Annexure-R.4, and thereafter the petitioners trespassed over the land and the Naib Tehsildar imposed a penalty ever them. The operative part of the judgment is as under: — "One of the prayers made by the petitioners in the writ petitions is that the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Hindaun dated April 15, 1971 (Annexure-B) be quashed. In fact this is the main relief, which the petitioners want. Unless that order is quashed, the petitioners cannot claim any Khate-dari rights in the land in dispute. This order was passed in the year 1971 and the petitioners have filed these writ petitions in the year 1981 i. e. after the expiry of ten years. The petitioners have failed to explain this inordinate delay in filing the writ petitions and on ground of laches also these writ petitions are not maintainable so far as the relief relating to quashing of the impugned order dated April 15, 1971 is concerned. "As already mentioned above, according to the State Government the Sub-Divisional Officer had taken possession of the land in dispute on February 19, 1975 vide Annexure R-4. Thereafter the petitioners again trespassed over the land and the Naib Tehsildar vide his order dt. August 9, 1977 imposed penalty over them as mentioned in paragraph No. 6 of the writ petition. From the resume of the case and the facts already narrated above, it can be said that the petitioners are guilty of laches and contumelious conduct which disentitle themselves from invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. For the reasons already mentioned above, I find no merit in the above writ petitions and they are dismissed summarily." 15. Mr. For the reasons already mentioned above, I find no merit in the above writ petitions and they are dismissed summarily." 15. Mr. Khan then raised a preliminary objection that admittedly allotment orders under challenge, allot the land to 365 persons and those allotments have been challenged as a whole in this case, but as those 365 persons in whose favour the allotments have been made have not been made parties, this Court cannot condemn them behind their back and quash the allotments without hearing them. In substance, the objection relates to non-joinder of parties on account of non-joinder of 365 persons in whose favour allotments has been made. 16. Mr. Khan then raised another preliminary objection that the petitioner and other persons have filed appeals-cum-revisions-cum-complaints-cum-applications under rule 17(4) of the Ceiling Rules before the Collector on precisely the same grounds on which this writ petition has been filed. It was, therefore, argued that this court should not allow duplicacy of proceedings and duel proceedings at the same time, because it will result in anomalous situation. 17. Replying to the separate objections, Mr. Khan pointed out that the allegations that allotments were made to the relatives of Shri Chet Ram Meena is incorrect. It was pointed out that in the writ petition no names were given of any relatives and a bald, sweeping and general allegation was made. Later on, in the process of reply to reply some names have been introduced, but they do not show any relationship between Shri Chetram Meena and those persons mentioned in the reply to the reply. It was also pointed out that allotments were made to those persons on 25.6.82 when Shri Chetram Meena was not present at all. The allotments of minors etc. were denied. Mr. Khan submitted that no such contention was raised in the writ petition and this allegation is an after-thought. Mr. Khan in his reply controverted all the allegations and then lastly submitted that all these questions raised by Mr. Tewari and denied by the respondents are complicated questions of fact on which this Court cannot hold an elaborate enquiry for adjudicating the truth or otherwise. 18. Regarding the stay order of the Government, Mr. Khan pointed out that as would be clear from the writ petition itself and the prayer clause, the Government order dated 12.8.80 was preceded by the latter order dated 24.6.82. Mr. 18. Regarding the stay order of the Government, Mr. Khan pointed out that as would be clear from the writ petition itself and the prayer clause, the Government order dated 12.8.80 was preceded by the latter order dated 24.6.82. Mr. Khan pointed out that this order dated 12.8.80 by which the Government decided not to allot 627 Bighas of land for the time being on account of some objections about the nature of the land and the status of the applicants or objectors at that time was ultimately adjudicated by this court in the earlier judgment and it was held by this court in the judgment of Single Bench on page 9 that the petitioner appellants were not required to give any notice as they were neither valid or legal transferees nor were recorded tenants or sub-tenants before the proceedings for ceiling were taken under the old Ceiling Law. It was held by the Division Bench that neither the letter issued by the Government dated 12th August, 1980 nor the decision of M. C. Jain J. referred to above is of any assistance to the petitioner-appellants. The Division Bench ultimately held as under:— "The allotments have already been made in favour of persons belonging to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes. The petitioner appellants had neither raised this ground in the writ petitions nor it was argued before the learned Single Judge. Even otherwise in order to bring the case under this Rule many conditions have to be fulfilled and we are not concerned to go nor into this matter. The lands have already been allotted in favour of other persons and the question of cancelling their allotments, is neither valid justi. 19. Having heard Mr. Tewari and Mr. Khan at length, I have given thoughtful consideration to the various issues involved in this writ petition. The first and the foremost objection which appears to be substantial and unassailable relates to the question whether the allotment orders made in favour of 365 persons who have been prima facie treated as landless tenants and in whose favour land has been allotted can be quashed and cancelled on account of allegations of nepotism or favourism behind the back of those persons. The elementary principles of natural justice warrant that before the allotments are cancelled and the orders are quashed, each person in whose favour allotment order stands should be heared. 20. The elementary principles of natural justice warrant that before the allotments are cancelled and the orders are quashed, each person in whose favour allotment order stands should be heared. 20. In my opinion, this objection of Mr. Khan goes to the root of the case and deserves to be accepted. 21. Mr. Tewari after contesting the above legal position during arguments, volunteered during the dictation of the order that he is prepared to join these 365 persons as respondents in this case, and he must be allowed an opportunity to do so now. For the reasons which I shall mention hereafter, 1 am of the opinion that no such opportunity can be given now at this stage and in any case it would be futile. 22. Mr. Tewari further submitted that it is not necessary to join 365 persons as respondents, because the Gram Panchayat has been challenging the allotments from the very beginning and in any case the challenge on behalf of the Gram Panchayat, which has got a right to file writ petition is for the welfare of the people as a whole. In my considered opinion, though it is true that the Gram Panchayat can file writ petition, and 1 would not express any opinion whether it is being done for the benefit of the people as a whole or for the benefit of Narainlal Sarpanch whose writ petition was dismissed earlier and those persons who met their water loops in the earlier writ petitions but even otherwise the right of 365 persons in whose favour allotments have been made as landless persons cannot be done away with and abandoned. It makes no difference whether the petitioner is Gram Panchayat or not. It is the right of a person in whom some property vests due to the allotment which is being considered to be heard and it is not in question as to who is the petitioner. Each individual in whose favour an allotment has been made by the Advisory Committee is entitled to be heard and to show cause and to give reply and convince this Court that the allotment is valid and the allegations of nepotism or favouritism, irregularities and illegalities are not correct. I am afraid, I cannot deprive them on this ground that the petitioner is Gram Panchayat and not an individual. 23. The second objection of Mr. Khan is equally substantial. I am afraid, I cannot deprive them on this ground that the petitioner is Gram Panchayat and not an individual. 23. The second objection of Mr. Khan is equally substantial. This relates to the fact that under Section 21 of the Ceiling Law allotment is made and under Section 23 any person aggrieved by any decision or order can file an appeal before the Collector of the concerned district against the decision or order. 24. Obviously, in the instant case, allotment orders have been made in writing. The various objections which the petitioner wants to take here in the writ petition could have been taken and can be taken before the Collector. The Collector of the district is conversant and has got speedy access to the record of the proceedings, and he can decide the entire case as an appellate authority under Section 23. Under sub-clause (4) of Section 23, he can either decide the case finally or remand the case or take additional evidence or require the evidence to be taken by an authorised persons for the decision of the case finally. 25. Such being the comprehensive provisions in Section 23, the petitioner could have challenged the allotment orders on the ground which have been urged here and the Collector would have been in a better position to decide them. According to sub-clause (6) there is further provision for the Board of Revenue to reconsider the matter. It is thus clear that according to subclause (1) and (2) not only one but two opportunities are provided, the first before the Collector and the second before the Board. 26. Mr. Tewari pointed out that since he has not challenged the allotments on merits, but he challenges the allotments as a whole on account of the grounds which are common to all or to a major part of the land, therefore the appeal was not the proper remedy. He further submitted that his application was neither taken nor rejected, and, therefore, he could not have filed the appeal. 27. I am afraid, the reply submitted by Mr. Tewari fails to carry any conviction with me, because nowhere it has been provided that only a person whose application is rejected can file an appeal. He further submitted that his application was neither taken nor rejected, and, therefore, he could not have filed the appeal. 27. I am afraid, the reply submitted by Mr. Tewari fails to carry any conviction with me, because nowhere it has been provided that only a person whose application is rejected can file an appeal. Any aggrieved person who has been deprived of the right to move an application or whose land is being allotted, even though the land vests in him under the law, can certainly file an appeal before the Collector. Moreover, the grounds which have been taken by Mr. Tewari regarding individual cases of favours on account of relationship or minority or otherwise requires a detailed consideration of the facts in individual case. If 4-5 persons were minor or 50 persons were minor, all the allotments cannot be quashed. If apart of the land is alleged to be such, it cannot be allotted on account of Section 16 then again the entire allotments cannot be quashed. Again, if some of the persons who are relatives of the Minister concerned and a case of nepotism and favouritism is proved, then it would be the individual cases which would require consideration by the appellate authority. The request for wholesale cancellation of the allotment orders cannot be entertained, when specific, positive, and more efficacious proper remedy is provided by appeal under Section 23 of the Act. In my considered opinion, the present one was an appropriate case where the petitioner or those persons who were aggrieved by allotment to 365 persons should have filed appeal taking specific grounds in each case, so that the Collector could have scrutinised the facts and decided them on an objective consideration of the entire matter. 28. Closely associated with the above the objection is that the petitioner with some other persons have filed complaints under rule 17(4) of the Ceiling Rules. It is not material as to whether rule 17 contemplates a representation or complaint or an application. The substance of the matter is that under rule 17 (4) allotment can be challenged. There is difference and divergence between the submissions of Mr. Tewari and Mr. Khan. Where as Mr. Khan submits that objections have been filed and are pending, and wants to show that the objection of Narainlal was filed before the Collector, Mr. The substance of the matter is that under rule 17 (4) allotment can be challenged. There is difference and divergence between the submissions of Mr. Tewari and Mr. Khan. Where as Mr. Khan submits that objections have been filed and are pending, and wants to show that the objection of Narainlal was filed before the Collector, Mr. Tewari submits that no such objections were filed and no documents have been filed before this Court, nor any allegations have been made in support of those allegations. Be that as it may. In my considered opinion, since I have held that proper remedy of appeal has been provided by the Legislature under S. 23, where all these disputed questions of fact can be adjudicated, it is immaterial whether some complaints or objections have been filed under section 17(4) or not. That factor would not come either in the way of accepting or rejecting the writ petition. 29. In view of the above two important objections of Mr. Khan, it is not necessary for me to decide the new separate allegations of the writ petition. It would be sufficient to mention here that if I would not have accepted the objection regarding the non-maintainability of the writ petition on account of the alternative remedy of appeal, I might have considered the prayer of Mr. Tewari which was made during dictation of the judgment to permit him of join 365 persons as parties. However, as the second point has also proved fatal to his case, therefore I feel that no useful purpose would be served by accepting his prayer at this belated stage. 30. Mr. Tewari pointed out that the petitioner and other persons were not allowed to move applications because of the presence of R.A.C. of the respondents at the place where allotments were made and the change of venue. Mr. Khan has denied that any person was deprived to make any application before the authority. Be that as it may. I am not deciding the above on merits, because it is a seriously disputed question, whether any person wanted to move any application at all. For one, the petitioner claims that the land belongs to him and he has not dispossessed so far, and the narration in the earlier part of the writ petition shows that he wants to assert that the land which is being allotted cannot be allotted. For one, the petitioner claims that the land belongs to him and he has not dispossessed so far, and the narration in the earlier part of the writ petition shows that he wants to assert that the land which is being allotted cannot be allotted. As a matter of fact, the prayer clause also shows that the notification or proclamation inviting applications should be quashed. That submission appears to be not genuine, because the main limb of the writ petition is that the allotments should not have been made at all, and the land is not surplus land in Ceiling Law. If that is so, it does not stand to reason that the petitioner who has been litigating earlier also and has filed this second writ petition, now in a different status of Gram Panchayat would have moved any application for the allotment of land. In any case, I have held that the writ petition is not maintainable on two preliminary objections. 31. I am restraining myself from adjudicating the question posed at the threshold of this judgment, whether this litigation is "old wine in new bottle", because I feel that the controversy can be avoided. However, I do feel that prima-facie, the contention of Mr. Khan about the "third innings" and effort of landowners to deprive landless, is not only relevant but well substantiated, from the history of litigation and earlier judgments. 32. If it is so, what a poor homage is being paid to the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973 and the earlier such provisions in Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 needs no comments. 33. In view of the above discussion, the objections of Mr. Khan are accepted. The writ petition fails and is dismissed without any order as to costs.