JUDGMENT 1. - Since all these Writ Petitions involve a challenge to the order dated 14.11.91 passed by the Additional Collector, Kota, which is more or less identical in all the cases and facts leading to the passing of the impugned order are also similar, these writ petitions are being disposed of by a common order. 2. For the purpose of appreciating the questions of law raised by the petitioners, it will be appropriate to refer to some facts. 3. In Writ Petition No.5291/91 Kanhaiya Lal v. The Additional Collector, Kota and others , it has been stated by the petitioner that he is an agriculturist by profession and he is in possession of land measuring 10x14 sq. feet in village Budhadit for more than ten years. Petitioner's father holds 50 bighas of land in village Budhadit. Petitioner has three real brothers and each brother has a share of 10 bighas of the said land. Father of the petitioner and his brothers are living separately and are cultivating the land of their shares separately. Petitioner has stated that he has raised a kachcha house on the piece of land measuring 10x14 sq.feet. On 31.7.90 he submitted an application to Gram Panchayat Budhadit for allotment of the aforesaid piece of land. On the basis of his application a site plan of the land in question was got prepared. Objections were invited and since no objection had been submitted by the villagers, Gram Panchayat Budhadit passed order for alloting the land to petitioner on 13.9.90 under Rule 267 of the Rajasthan Panchayat (General) Rules, 1961. This allotment was approved by the Panchayat Samiti Sultanpur vide its resolution dated 28.5.91. Against the order of allotment of the land made in favour of the petitioner, respondent No.2 filed a Revision Petition before the Additional Collector, Kota and the Additional Collector has set aside this allotment by his order dated 14.11.91. The petitioner has assailed this order on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the Additional Collector, non-application of mind and an error of law apparent on the face of record. 4. In Writ Petition No 5292/92 Lokesh Kumar v. The Additional Collector, Kota and others , the petitioner has stated that he is a resident of village Budhadit. He is in possession of land measuring 10x15 sq.feet for last more than 18 years. 4. In Writ Petition No 5292/92 Lokesh Kumar v. The Additional Collector, Kota and others , the petitioner has stated that he is a resident of village Budhadit. He is in possession of land measuring 10x15 sq.feet for last more than 18 years. His father holds land measuring 50 bighas in the said village. He has got three brothers including Kanhaiya lal. Each brother separately cultivates his share of land. His brothers and father reside separately. He has constructed a kachcha house on the piece of land measuring 10x15 sq.feet. Other facts mentioned in this writ petition and grounds raised for challenging order dated 14.11.91 passed by the Additional Collector, Kota are similar to writ petition No.5291/92. 5. In Writ Petition No. 5293/92 Mohan lal v. The Additional Collector, Kota and others , the petitioner has stated that he is a resident of Budhadit. He is an agriculturist and cultivates the land in partnership or on 'munafa'. He has no house in village Budhadit and presently he is residing with his brother-in-law. He is a student in Government College, Kota. He is in possession of land measuring 20x10 sq.feet in village Budhadit for more than one year. He has constructed a kachcha house on the disputed land which is enclosed by thorny bushes. He has submitted an application on 11.9.90 for allotment of the land measuring 20x10 sq. feet outside village Budhadit. A site plan of the land in question was got prepared and objections were invited. Since no objection was submitted by the villagers, the Gram Panchayat passed order dated 13.9.90/15.10.90 under Rule 267 of 1961 Rules for allotment of land to the petitioner. This allotment has been confirmed by the Panchayat Samiti Sultanpur vide its resolution dated 28.5.91. On a Revision preferred by respondent No.2, the Additional Collector, Kota has set aside the allotment. Grounds of challenge raised in this writ petition are identical to those raised in other writ petitions and, therefore, detailed reference to the same is not necessary. 6. In Writ Petition No.5317/91 Chhamma Bai v. The Additional Collector, Kota and others the petitioner has stated that she is a resident of village Budhadit. She is wife of Kedar Lal, who has 32 bighas of land in his khatedari in village Budhadit. He has also a house in village Budhadit. He has two wives, namely, the petitioner and Smt. Badri Bai. She is wife of Kedar Lal, who has 32 bighas of land in his khatedari in village Budhadit. He has also a house in village Budhadit. He has two wives, namely, the petitioner and Smt. Badri Bai. The petitioner is in possession of a piece of land measuring 45x 45. sq. feet in village Budhadit since 1978. She has constructed a kachcha house on the disputed land and has enclosed it by thorny bushes. On 31.7.90 she had submitted an application before Gram Panchayat Budhadit for allotment of the land measuring 45x 45 sq. feet. A site plan was got prepared by Gram Panchayat, Budhadit. Objections were invited from the villagers. Since no objection was submitted by any of the villagers, Gram Panchayat passed order dated 13.9.90 and allotted the said land to the petitioner under Rule 267 of 1961 Rules. This allotment was confirmed by the Panchayat Samiti Sultanpur. Respondent No.2 filed a Revision Petition before the Additional Collector, Kota and the Additional Collector has set aside the allotment of land made in favour of the petitioner by his impugned order dated 14.11.91. Grounds of challenge raised in this writ petition to the order dated 14.11.91 are identical to the grounds raised in the other writ petitions and, therefore, detailed reference of the same is not being made. 7. In Writ Petition No. 5491/92 Kedar Lal v. The Additional Collector, Kota and others , the petitioner has alleged that he is a resident of village Budhadit. He is an agriculturist by profession. He has 32 bighas of land in his khatedari in village Budhadit. He owns his house in village Budhadit. He has two wives, namely Smt.Chhamma Bai and Smt. Badri Bai. He is in possession of land measuring 10x14 sq.feet in village Budhadit. He has raised a kachcha construction over the said land. He had submitted application on 31.7.90 to Gram Panchayat Budhadit for allotment of the said piece of land falling outside village Budhadit. A site plan was got prepared by Gram Panchayat Budhadit. Objections were invited and since no objection had been submitted, the Gram Panchayat allotted the said piece of land to the petitioner by order dated 13.9.90. It has been affirmed by Panchayat Samiti Sultanpur vide resolution dated 28.5.91. Respondent No.2 filed Revision Petition against this allotment before the Additional Collector, Kota, who has accepted the Revision Petition by the impugned order dated 14.11.91. It has been affirmed by Panchayat Samiti Sultanpur vide resolution dated 28.5.91. Respondent No.2 filed Revision Petition against this allotment before the Additional Collector, Kota, who has accepted the Revision Petition by the impugned order dated 14.11.91. 8. Although no reply to the writ petitions has been filed by either of the respondents, Shri K.N.Gupta, learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 3 has placed before me original files containing the various proceedings taken by Gram Panchayat Budhadit on the applications filed by petitioners Mohan Lal Meena, Lokesh Kumar and Kanhaiya Lai. From these files it is borne out that Kanhaiya Lal submitted an application dated nil for allotment of land measuring 10x14 sq.feet. On 31.7.90 Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Budhadit recorded that the application be registered in accordance with the rules and be presented with the file. On that very day a notice under Rule 260 of 1961 Rules was issued inviting objections in respect of the application filed by the petitioner Kanhaiya Lal for purchase of the land. A report was submitted to the Sarpanch by Assistant Secretary of the Gram Panchayat along with a site plan. This site plan bears the signatures of S/Shri Mahendra Singh, Bhewar Singh had Laxmi Chand, who are said to be Panchas of Gram Panchayat Budhadit. Another report dated nil has been submitted to Sarpanch by Assistant Secretary of the Gram Panchayat for allotment of land to Kanhaiya Lai. This bears signatures of S/Shri Laxmi Chand (Panch), Mahendra Singh (Panch) and also Chotu Lal Dhobi. On 13.9.90, Gram Panchayat took a decision for allotment of the land in favour of applicant Kanhaiya Lal. A look at the decision of the Gram Panchayat dated 13.9.90 shows that price of the land has been mentioned as Rs.700/- and it has been noted that applicant had deposited Rs. 350/- vide receipt No.43 dated 12.7.83 and other sum of Rs.350/- by receipt No. 45 dated 1.10.85. This resolution also shows that in the first instance reference has been made to some Rule other than Rule 267. Subsequently, an overwriting has been made and an attempt has been made to show that allotment has been made under Rule 267 and a further mention has been made that sanction is granted for free allotment. This resolution also shows that in the first instance reference has been made to some Rule other than Rule 267. Subsequently, an overwriting has been made and an attempt has been made to show that allotment has been made under Rule 267 and a further mention has been made that sanction is granted for free allotment. This allotment was considered by administrative standing committee of the Panchayat Samiti Sultanpur along with the case of other 13 persons and the Panchayat Samiti agreed with the allotment of the land by observing that since houses have been constructed and the applicants are in possession of the land, the land cannot be allotted to any body else and, therefore, issue of patta to these persons is justified. In the file of Lokesh Kumar, application dated nil was filed for allotment of land measuring 10x15 sq.feet and similar proceedings were drawn. In his case also the resolution contains a stipulation that he has deposited the price of Rs.750/- on 1.10.86. This resolution also contains an overwriting regarding the number of Rule under which the allotment is said to have been made. In the file of Mohan Lal, application is said to have been filed on 11.9.90. He has mentioned that he does not have a land. In his case similar proceedings were drawn and order dated 15.10.90 was passed by the Gram Panchayat. In his case the Gram Panchayat noted that since the applicant was a member of Scheduled Tribe and had no house, the land be given free of cost for construction of house. 9. Shri K. K. Mehrish, learned Counsel for the petitioners has argued that the Additional Collector, Kota has committed a serious error of jurisdiction in entertaining the Revision Petitions filed by respondent No.2 who had no locus standi in the matter. Shri Mehrish submitted that father of respondent No.2 is holding 55 bighas of land. Respondent No. 2 himself is a Contractor of I'.W.D., Kota. He is a member of general Caste and all the petitioners are members of Scheduled Caste. Respondent No. 2 has no locus standi to claim allotment of land under Rule 267 of 1961 Rules and, therefore, he was not competent to make grievance against the allotment of lands made in favour of the petitioners. He is a member of general Caste and all the petitioners are members of Scheduled Caste. Respondent No. 2 has no locus standi to claim allotment of land under Rule 267 of 1961 Rules and, therefore, he was not competent to make grievance against the allotment of lands made in favour of the petitioners. Shri Mehrish argued that the Additional Collector has completely overlooked these important aspects of the matter while entertaining the Revision Petitions filed by the respondent. He then submitted that under Section 31 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act read with Rules 8 to 17 (Chapter III) of the Rajasthan Tenancy (Government) Rules, 1955 and Rule 267 of 1961 Rules, the Gram Panchayat was fully competent to entertain the applications filed by the petitioners and order allotment of lands in their favour without charging any cost. Shri Mehrish further argued that all the petitioners belong to Scheduled Tribe and the Panchayat had full jurisdiction to allot land to the petitioners who are landless persons 'and who are agriculturist by profession. Shri Mehrish submitted that the Additional Collector has totally misdirected himself in thinking that the allotment of lands have been made in accordance with Rules 255 to 266 of,1961 Rules whereas in fact the allotment has been made under rule 267. According to Shri Mehrish the basic premise on which the Additional Collector proceeded to decide the Revision Petitions, namely, that the allotment of lands were made without following the procedure prescribed in Rules 255 to 266, is wholly wrong and, therefore, the order passed by the Additional Collector suffers from an error of law apparent on the fact of it. Shri Mehrish lastly argued that the Additional Collector has no jurisdiction to completely frustrate the rights of the petitioners to claim allotment of land under Rule 267 of 1961 Rules. If he thought that the procedure prescribed in the Rules has not been followed, at the best the Additional Collector could have remanded the matter to the Gram Panchayat for reconsideration in accordance with law. Shri K. N. Gupta, learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 3 argued that the Gram Panchayat Budhadit has acted in wholesale breach of the provisions of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, the Rules framed under that Act as well as 1961 Rules and allotment of lands made in favour of the petitioners was fraudulent. Shri K. N. Gupta, learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 3 argued that the Gram Panchayat Budhadit has acted in wholesale breach of the provisions of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, the Rules framed under that Act as well as 1961 Rules and allotment of lands made in favour of the petitioners was fraudulent. Shri Gupta submitted that Shri Dwarka Lai, who was holding the office of Sarpanch in the year 1990 had himself challenged the allotment made earlier by the Gram Panchayat Budhadit before the Additional Collector and the Additional Collector had set aside previous allotments vide his order dated 23.7.90. The Gram Panchayat completely ignored that order of the Additional Collector while making the impugned allotments. Shri Gupta submitted that except Shri Mohan Lai (petitioner), none of the petitioners had submitted in their applications that they do not have any residential house in village Budhadit and, therefore, their applications could not have been treated as applications filed under Rule 8 of the Rajasthan Tenancy (Government) Rules, 1955. By making a reference to the files of Gram Panchayat, Shri Gupta submitted that notice under Rule 260 of 1961 Rules had been issued by Gram Panchayat and that in various cases price of the land had been mentioned and two of the persons had even deposited the price showing that the allotment had been made under Rules 255 to 266 and not under Rule 267. Shri Gupta argued that the Additional Collector has not committed any illegality in entertaining the Revision Petitions of Respondent No. 2 and in setting aside the allotments made by the Gram Panchayat. He further argued that Panchayat Samiti Sultanpur completely ignored the order passed by the Additional Collector on 23.7.90 and affirmed the action taken by the Gram Panchayat merely because the petitioners were in possession of the land. Shri Gupta further argued that before the Additional Collector the petitioners had justified the allotment of lands in their favour on the ground of public interest and not on the ground that it was made under Rule 267 of 1961 Rules. 10. Shri S. M. Jain, learned counsel for respondent No.2 argued that the respondent had filed Revision Petitions as a villager of village Budhadit. 10. Shri S. M. Jain, learned counsel for respondent No.2 argued that the respondent had filed Revision Petitions as a villager of village Budhadit. When he found that elected representatives of the public, namely the Sarpanch and Panchas had played fraud with the public, he brought this to the notice of the Additional Collector by way of Revision Petitions and such a Petition could be entertained by the Additional Collector under Rule 272 of 1961 Rules. He pointed out that petitioner Mohan Lai was merely a student and was not an agriculturist and, therefore, he could not have been allotted land under Rule 267(2)(a) of 1961 Rules. 11. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the Additional Collector, Kota shows that in case No. 13 of 1990, Additional Collector, Kota had earlier passed an order dated 23.7.90 in regard to the allotment made by the Gram Panchayat Budhadit and the matter had been remanded to Panchayat for taking action in accordance with Rules. The Additional Collector had then noted some facts of the case of Kanhaiya Lai showing that application had been submitted on 31.7.90 and on that very day direction was given by the Sarpanch for issue of notice and he also directed the Assistant Secretary to prepare the site plan. No further date has been given. The order sheet shows that the file was then presented on 11.8.90 and that is also the date of submission of the site plan by the Assistant Secretary. The site plan however does not show as to in whose presence it had been prepared. It had also not been shown as to how notice had been published and pasted. The file was then fixed for 25.8.90. On that day it was ordered to be taken up on 26.8.90 and then on 6.9.90. On 6.9.90 the file was not produced. On 13.9.90 the final order has been recorded. The Additional Collector also noted that according to the Panchayat, the petitioner had already deposited Rs.700/-. The Additional Collector then observed that Dwarka lal Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat is the same person who had earlier filed Revision Petitions under section 27A. He had alleged that the Rules had not been followed and the allotment had been made unlawfully. Now Dwarkalal has himself made the allotment without following the procedure prescribed in the Rules. The Additional Collector then observed that Dwarka lal Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat is the same person who had earlier filed Revision Petitions under section 27A. He had alleged that the Rules had not been followed and the allotment had been made unlawfully. Now Dwarkalal has himself made the allotment without following the procedure prescribed in the Rules. The Additional Collector also noted from the files that all the proceedings have been done in one day. Provisions contained in Rules 255 to 266 of 1961 Rules have not been followed and thus the Gram Panchayat has acted in total disregard of the earlier order dated 23.7.90 passed by the Additional Collector and allotment had been made without any evidence and in a most arbitrary manner. He also noted that Kanhaiya Lal is son of ex-Sarpanch and his three brothers have also been allotted lands separately. All these proceedings appear to be suspicious and highly objectionable. He also recorded that the Panchayat Samiti had acted without application of mind in approving the allotment made by Gram Panchayat Budhaidit. Similar reasons have been given by the Additional Collector in the order passed in other cases. In this regard it is important to notice that petitioners Kanhaiya Lal and Lokesh Kumar are real brothers and petitioners Kedar Lal and Smt.Chhamma Bai are husband and wife. The allotment proceedings drawn by the Gram Panchayat show that except in the case of Mohan Lal, none of the applicants had stated before the Gram Panchayat that he is not having a residential site in village Budhadit. On the contrary Kedar Lal had categorically stated that he has a residential house in village Budhadit. In the writ petitions of Smt.Chhamma Bai and Mohan Lal, the petitioners have not stated that they are agriculturists or artisans or landless labourers. None of these applications have been submitted under Rule 8 of the Rajasthan Tenancy (Government) Rules, 1955 and there is nothing to indicate that reports have been submitted by the concerned authorities as per the requirements of Chapter III of Rajasthan Tenancy (Government) Rules, 1955. 12. None of these applications have been submitted under Rule 8 of the Rajasthan Tenancy (Government) Rules, 1955 and there is nothing to indicate that reports have been submitted by the concerned authorities as per the requirements of Chapter III of Rajasthan Tenancy (Government) Rules, 1955. 12. That apart a look at the order dated 23.7.90, which has been placed before the Court by learned counsel for the petitioners, shows that allotments made in favour of S/Shri Kedar Lal, Shrinath, Surya Prakash and Sanjay Kumar by Gram Panchayat Budhadit in the years 1983 and 1985 became subject matter of Revision Petitions filed by the Gram Panchayat itself. While deciding these Revision Petitions the Additional Collector noted that allotment had been made to various persons who were relatives of the elected representatives of the Gram Panehayat. Kedar Lal was himself Panch of the Gram Panchayat of Budhadit village and allotment had been made in his favour as well as in favour of his wife. The Additional Collector noted that the procedure prescribed in the Rules for the purpose of allotment of land had been given a complete go-bye. Allotments had been made in favour of minor persons and in case of one person allotment had been made on two dates. On the basis of those findings the Additional Collector set aside the allotments and directed the Gram Panchayat to take action in accordance with the Rules. That order of the Additional Collector has not been challenged either by Kedar Lal or By Smt. Chhamma Bai and, therefore, qua them the findings recorded by the Additional Collector have become final. Even otherwise it is clear from order dated 23.7.90 that the Additional Collector had given directions to the Gram Panchayat to act in accordance with the Rules in the context of the allotments made in the purported compliance of Rules 255 to 266. In the face of the order dated 23.7.90 I find no justification in the argument of Shri Mehrish that the Additional Collector had misdirected himself by assuming that the allotments have been made to the petitioners under Chapter XIII (Rules 255 to 266) of 1961 Rules. In the face of the order dated 23.7.90 I find no justification in the argument of Shri Mehrish that the Additional Collector had misdirected himself by assuming that the allotments have been made to the petitioners under Chapter XIII (Rules 255 to 266) of 1961 Rules. After having carefully perused the files of the Gram Panchayat I am also of the opinion that the Additional Collector has not committed any error in observing that the procedure prescribed in Rules 255 to 266 have not been followed while making the impugned allotments. That apart, a look at the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti Sultanpur (Annexure-2), filed in all these writ petitions, show that the Gram Panchayat Budhadit made allotments once again in favour of almost all those persons to whom allotment had been made earlier and whose allotment has been found illegal by the Additional Collector, Kota in his order dated 23.7.90. This speaks volume of malafides on the part of Gram Panchayat as also on the part of the Panchayat Samiti in making allotment of lands, issue of pattas and confirmation of the allotments made in favour of those persons. Interestingly, the Panchayat Samiti has in its proceedings not at all considered the question as to whether the Gram Panchayat has followed the rules in the light of the order passed on 23.7.90 by the Additional Collector. The only factum which has prevailed with the Panchayat Samiti is that 14 persons have already raised certain construction over the land in their possession and now it is not possible to allot the land to other persons by dispossessing them. It is thus clear that the Gram Panchayat and Panchayat Samiti have not applied their mind to the relevant provisions of law and have completely overlooked the order passed on 23.7.90 by the Additional Collector. 13. In order to appreciate the contention of Shri Mehrish that the impugned allotments should be treated as the allotments made under Rule 267, it is necessary to refer to Section 31 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955,Rule 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 of the Rajasthan Tenancy (Government) Rules, 1955, as also Rule 267 of 1961 Rules. 13. In order to appreciate the contention of Shri Mehrish that the impugned allotments should be treated as the allotments made under Rule 267, it is necessary to refer to Section 31 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955,Rule 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 of the Rajasthan Tenancy (Government) Rules, 1955, as also Rule 267 of 1961 Rules. It will be useful to quote these provisions for the purpose of ready reference: Section 31 Act of 1955, Right to residential house-(1) Subject to any rules, that may be made by the State Government in this behalf, a tenant shall have the right, free of charge, to possess in the abadi of the village in which he holds land a site for a residential house : Provided that, if he holds land in more than one village, he may choose the village in which he wishes to enjoy this concession and shall not be entitled to this concession in more than one village : Provided further that he shall have to make an application to the Tehsildar, if he has no residential house, for allotment of a suitable site for the purpose. (2) Subject as aforesaid and notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in sections 95, 96, 97, 98 and 102 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (Rajasthan Act 15 of 1956), an agricultural worker or an artisan who may have been permanently residing in the abadi of a village for ten years or more shall also have the right, free of charge, to possess in the abadi of that village a site for a residential house and the provisions contained in the second proviso to sub-section (1) shall apply. Rules of 1955, 8. Application for allotment of house-sites to tenants:- Applications for house-sites should be made in writing to the Tehsildar of the Tehsil concerned if the house-site applied for is situated in a village which has not got a Village Panchayat, and in other cases to the Village Panchayat, and should clearly specify the land required, the purpose for which it is required i.e. whether for constructing a Pucca house, Kucha house, Patore, Ekdhalia, Nohra or Bara. The applicant must also give full details of his holding in the village in which he wants a house-site; and if he holds land in more than one village, he should give particulars of all his holdings and should indicate the village in which he wishes to enjoy the concession allowed by section 31(1) of the Act. The applicant should also state clearly in the application that he does not possess a house in the abadi of the village in which he wants the house-site. 9. Each application received should be registered as a separate case and a report should be called for from the patwari of the Halga, as to the correctness of the statements made in the application and the availability or otherwise of the site, applied for. 10. The fact that an application has been made for a particular site shall be published in the village by beat of drum (at the expense of the applicant) or public announcement, and a notice in (From AAA) should be pasted up at the village Chopal and at the site applied for, for a period of 10 days. 11. Before the end of the period specified in the foregoing rule the patwari shall submit a report in Form B in respect of an application under rule 8 and in Form BB in respect of an application under rule 8-A together with the notice, as published, and a certificate of its publication, duly signed by himself and the Patel or Lambardar of the village, and a regular map and khasra of the site. 12. The patwari should prepare a map of the site of be granted .showing the directions, the adjoining building and measurements connecting the site with any permanent or semi-permanent marks in the neighborhood. All these measurement must be entered in the plotted sketch which must clearly show the scale on which the plot has been made. Rough pencil sketches which are not on scale should not be accepted. 13. (1) If any objections are received, the Tehsildar, or the village Panchayat, as the case may be, should hear and dispose of these objections first, and if no objection are received, the Tchsildar, or the Village Panchayat, as the case may be, should dispose of the case by a written order. 13. (1) If any objections are received, the Tehsildar, or the village Panchayat, as the case may be, should hear and dispose of these objections first, and if no objection are received, the Tchsildar, or the Village Panchayat, as the case may be, should dispose of the case by a written order. (2) In the case of applications under sub-section (2) of section 31 of the Act and rule 8-A, and enquiry shall be made as to whether the applicant is an agricultural worker or an artisan within the meaning of that sub-section and has been permanently residing in the abadi of the village for ten years or more. Rule 267 1961 Rules, Allotment of lands free of charge:- (1) In relation of allotment of lands within the Panchavat circle free of charge for residential houses under section 31 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 the provision of rules 8 to 17 of the Rajasthan Tenancy (Government) Rules, 1955 shall apply 'mutatis mutandis'. (2) (a) The Panchayat may also allot abadi land upto 50 sq.Yds. in village abadis free of charge to members of the Scheduled Caste/Schedule Tribes, backward classes, village artisans and landless labourers who don't own house sites/houses, and also to flood victims whose houses have been washed away or the house sites have been rendered unfit for future habitation due to floods. (b) For allotment of house sites to flood victims at another place/places, the Panchayat concerned shall invite applications from such persons along with an undertaking that in case of allotment of house sites at other place/places the house sites washed away in flood along with material shall vest in the Panchayat concerned free from all encumbrances." 14. The above quoted provisions show provisions show that under Section 31 to 1955 Act, special provisions have been enacted for empowering the competent authority to allot land free of charge for residential purposes to the tenants, agricultural workers and artisan who hold land in the village or who may have been permanently residing in abadi land of the village for ten years or more. Rules 8 to 17 in general and Rules 8 to 13 in particular provide the detailed procedure which is required to be followed before an allotment can be made under section 31. While Rule 8 relates to applications made by a tenant, Rule 8-A relates to application made by agricultural worker or artisan. Rules 8 to 17 in general and Rules 8 to 13 in particular provide the detailed procedure which is required to be followed before an allotment can be made under section 31. While Rule 8 relates to applications made by a tenant, Rule 8-A relates to application made by agricultural worker or artisan. These rules require that the application must contain a statement regarding the applicant's holding in the village or his residence and that he does not possess a house in the abadi of village in which he wants a house site. The applicant is required to specify the land required for the purpose of pucca house, kucha house, pator, ekdhalia, nohra or bara. Application under Rule 8-A is required to be made in Form AA. Each application is required to be registered. Patwari of the area has to make a report regarding the correctness of the statement made in the application and availability of the site applied for. Notice is then required to be given in from AAA by beating of drum or by public announcements or by affixation at the village Chopal and at the site applied for. Patwari is then required to submit a report in Form B or Form BB respectively in regard to the applications filed under Rule 8 or Rule 8-A. He has to certify the publication of notice in terms of Rule 10. He is also required to submit a regular map and khasra of the site. After consideration of objection, if any, submitted by a villager, a decision is to be taken by the competent authority for allotment of the land. 15. By virtue of Rule 267(1) of 1961 Rules, provisions of Section 31 of 1955 Act as also Rules 8 to 17 of 1955 Rules have been made applicable 'mutatis mutandis' to the lands falling within the Panchayat circle for allotment free of charge for residential purposes. Rule 267(2)(a) further empowers the Panchayat to allot abadi land upto 50 sq.Yds. free of charge to the members of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe, backward classes, village artisan and landless labourers who do not own house sites/house. Since Rules 8 to 17 have been made applicable to the allotments made by Panchayat, the procedure prescribed in those Rules has to be strictly followed before an allotment can be made under Rule 267(1) or Rule 267(2) (a). Since Rules 8 to 17 have been made applicable to the allotments made by Panchayat, the procedure prescribed in those Rules has to be strictly followed before an allotment can be made under Rule 267(1) or Rule 267(2) (a). Allotment under these rules can be made only to such member of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe, backward classes/village artisan/landless labourers who does not own house site or house in the village. As a logical corollary, it has to be held that person who owns house or house site, has no right to claim allotment of abadi land free of charge. Any allotment made in favour of a person, who does not fulfill the requirements specified in Section 31 of 1955 Act or Ruie 267 of 1961 Rules, is illegal and void, and no right, much less a legal right is conferred on such a person. 16. In the present cases, the record of Gram Panchayat Budhadit shows that except Mohan Lal, none of the other petitioners has stated that he does not have a house site or house in the village. On the contrary, petitioner Kedar Lal has in unequivocal terms stated that he is already having house in the abadi of village Budhadit and he lives in the said village with his two wives. In none of these cases the procedure prescribed in Rules 8 to 17 has been followed. There is nothing on record to show that notice has been published as required by Rule 10 of the Rajasthan Tenancy (Government) Rules, 1955. If these serious irregularities are looked into in the light of the order dated 23.7.90 passed by the Additional Collector, Kota, there remains no doubt that the allotment in question had not been made by the Gram Panchayat under Rule 267 of 1961 Rules. Argument of Shri Mehrish, learned counsel for the petitioners, about applicability of Rule 267 is not founded on the facts which could justify invoking of Rule 267 by the Gram Panchayat. If Rule 267 had been applied, there could have been no occasion for some of the applicants to deposit the price of the land. The manner in which the record of Gram Panchayat has been prepared shows interpolation in the final decision and Rule 267 has been written by overwriting and then note has been given in some of the cases that the allotment be made free of charge. The manner in which the record of Gram Panchayat has been prepared shows interpolation in the final decision and Rule 267 has been written by overwriting and then note has been given in some of the cases that the allotment be made free of charge. If in this background the Additional Collector, Kota has quashed the allotments by his order dated 14.11.91, his action cannot be termed as arbitrary or illegal. In my considered opinion, the order passed by the Additional Collector does not suffer from any error of law apparent on the face of the record, warranting interference by this court under Arts. 226 & 227. 17. Regarding locus standi of respondent No.2, I would like to observe that it was open to the Additional Collector to entertain the revision petitions under Section 27A of 1953 Act or even under rule 272 of 1961 Rules. That he could have done even on his own motion. 18. There is another reason as to why this Court must not interfere in such a matter once it has been revealed that the functionaries of Gram Panchayat have played fraud not only with the provisions but with the public property and Panchayat Samiti has become a party to it. Total disregard of the order passed by the Additional Collector on 23.7.90 at the behest of Gram Panchayat, which was headed by none-else than Dwarka Lal, who has now made allotments to the same persons, speaks volume of the ulterior motive of the functionaries of Gram Panchayat in making allotments of the land to the petitioners and issue of patta in their favour. No explanation whatsoever has been furnished by the petitioners as to why despite the direction given by the Additional Collector to follow the procedure laid down in Rules 255 to 266, the Gram Panchayat chose to make allotment in disregard of those Rules. Passing of an order by this Court under Articles 226 & 227 in such a matter would result in restoration of an illegality which has been committed by the Gram Panchayat and the Panchayat Samiti. The extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court is required to be exercised in order to do justice to the parties whose rights are adversely affected. This power cannot be used for perpetuation of injustice or for protecting those who played deceit on the public. The extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court is required to be exercised in order to do justice to the parties whose rights are adversely affected. This power cannot be used for perpetuation of injustice or for protecting those who played deceit on the public. Use of power by this Court in favour of the persons like petitioners is, therefore, wholly unwarranted. 19. In the result, I do not find any merit in these writ petitions. The same are dismissed with costs of Rs.1,000/- payable by each of the petitioners except Mohan Lal, in favour of Gram Panchayat Budhadit. Mohan Lal is not being saddled with costs looking to the fact that he is a student. This order will not preclude Mohan Lal from claiming a house site, if he is entitled under the Rules of 1961. 20. Before parting with the case, I would like to observe that elected representatives, who hold the Offices of Sarpanch and Panchas are trustees of public faith and confidence. People of the village elect them with the hope that they would serve them for a particular term and would act in a manner which would result in over all development of the panchayat area and improvement in living conditions of the villagers. Gram Panchayats, Panchayat Samitis and such local bodies are trustees of the public property which is placed at their disposal. Those who are empowered by law to deal with such properties, have a pious obligation not to act in a manner which result in breach of such trust. Article 46 of the Constitution of India enjoins upon the State to promote the educational and economic interests of weaker section of the people and, in particular, of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The State is required to protect them from social injustice and all forms of exploitation. The State is under a constitutional obligation to take measures for promoting the interests of the weaker sections of the society. This is a social obligation which the State is required to fulfill in order to bring about a situation where all people in the country can enjoy the fundamental rights guaranteed under part III of the Constitution. The State is under a constitutional obligation to take measures for promoting the interests of the weaker sections of the society. This is a social obligation which the State is required to fulfill in order to bring about a situation where all people in the country can enjoy the fundamental rights guaranteed under part III of the Constitution. Gram Panchayats and local bodies which are nothing but agencies and instrumentalities of the State are also under a duty to act in consonance with the spirit with which Article 46 has been enacted.The promotion of interests of the weaker sections, Scheduled Castes and Schedule 6 Tribes is to be undertaken by the State and its agencies in such a manner in which the benefit goes to that group of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes who falls in the category of 'have nots' and not to those who have acquired the status of 'haves' within that segment of the society. Those members of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe who have already acquired large chunks of lands and residential properties, cannot be treated as persons entitled to the protection of the State machinery. However, it is unfortunate for the country that the benefit of the State policies directed towards promoting the interests of the weaker sections of the society and in particular Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, has gone to the 'haves' of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and the poorest of the poors still suffer. The class of haves within the Schedules Castes and Scheduled Tribes have taken lion's share of all the benefits given by the State and its agencies and they still strive to grab the State largess, concessions and benefits which are intended to be given to the poorer sections of the society.Therefore, time has now come when the State and the society must take notice of this unfortunate development and take all steps to nip in bud any attempt made by the 'haves' of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes to grab the State benefits meant for the people belonging to the poor strata of the society. The courts also owe duty like any other citizens of the country to see that policies enshrined in directive principles of the State policy are so implemented that they fulfill the constitutional goals of justice, social, economic and political equality of status and opportunity etc. The courts also owe duty like any other citizens of the country to see that policies enshrined in directive principles of the State policy are so implemented that they fulfill the constitutional goals of justice, social, economic and political equality of status and opportunity etc. and where-ever it is found by the Court that attempt has been made by someone to frustrate the State policy of promoting interests of weaker sections of the society including Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, who deserve to get the advantage of State policy, it must frustrate such attempts. 21. These petitions are illustrative of gross abuse of public offices by Sarpanch and Panchas of Gram Panchayat Budhadit who have prima facie committed a breach of public faith and trust by making impugned allotments. Therefore, while awarding costs against the petitioners, I would direct that the State Government should hold an inquiry against the then sarpanch and Panchas of the Gram Panchayat as also the officers who became party for allotment of lands in favour of the petitioners and issue of pattas. The Government should take action against the elected representatives in terms of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act and against the employees in accordance with the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1961 or Rajasthan Civil Service (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules,1958.Petition dismissed with cost. *******