JUDGMENT 1. - These two special appeals are directed against the judgment dated 10.2.94 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court allowing the writ petition in part filed by Moolchand & Ors. which was in the nature of public interest litigation. Since both appeals arise out of a common order passed by the learned Single Judge, they are being disposed of by a common judgment. 2. The facts giving rise to the instant case which was in the nature of public interest litigation, are as under : 3. Moolchand, Jagdish Prasad Soni, Ram Swaroop and Girdhar Sharma are the residents of village Diggi, Tehsil Malpura, District Tonk, State of Rajasthan. Village Diggi falls within the local jurisdiction of Gram Panchayat Diggi. There are 4 Dhanis which constitute the wards of Gram Panchayat Diggi. The population of Gram Panchayat Diggi is about 10,000. The temple of Shri Kalyan Rai ji Maharaj is situated in the said village. People from all corners of the country are alleged to visit village Diggi for worshipping the idol of Shri Kalyan Rai Ji Maharaj throughout the year. Largest number of pilgrims are alleged to visit in the month of Savan and a Fair is also organised by the temple authorities during the month of Bhadva every year. There are one dam and two tanks in village Diggi in question which are popularly known as Megh Sagar Dam, Vijay Sagar Tank and Sarvan Sagar Tank. Out of 3 dams Megh Sagar Dam is maintained by the Irrigation Department and is in the charge of Assistant Engineer Irrigation, Malpura which is primarily used as a source of irrigation and the fields of the agriculturists of the village provide water through two canals popularly known as Right Canal and Left Canal and various water cources. The area of Megh Sagar Dam is 22 Bigha 8 Biswas which is mainly situated in Khasra No. 1371. Besides this area of boundary 3 Bigha 15 Biswa comparised in Khasra No. 1373, 5 Bigha 2 Biswa comprised in Khasra No. 1378 and 5 Bigha 19 Biswa of land comprised in Khasra No. 1379 and has been shown as Khandi which has been formed as a result of construction of the Damand here also the depth of the water is about 6 feet and canal also passes through this Khandi. It is alleged that the appellant petitioners No. 1 to 3 irrigate their land through this water which is supplied through Khandi and similarly 66 other cultivators in all 69 irrigate their lands through the water supplied from the aforesaid source. It was further alleged that the Irrigation Department has a budget of maintenance of Rs. 80,000/- per year for this purpose. Towards the South of this Dam there is a public Ghat ten feet in length and ten feet in width for use of pilgrims. Towards the West of the Ghat there is a cattle-pond for drinking water of the animals. Two public Urinals have also been constructed and towards the South there are 26 Dharamshalas in the village one of them belongs to the respondent No. 6 which was constructed on 2 Bighas of land, out of which 11/2 Bigha towards the South side is lying vacant. Petitioners grievance is that the respondent No. 6 in 1991 entered into a conspiracy with Tehsildar, Malpura and decided to grab certain portion of the land comprised in Megh Sagar Dam. Accordingly, the respondent No. 6 moved an application for allotment of 5 Bighas of land out of Khasra No. 1371 before Tehsildar which is the part of Megh Sagar Dam for construction of a Dharmshala and other public uses. After the receipt of the said application Tehsildar sent a letter to the Administrator, Cram Panchayat Diggi directing him to issue a No Objection Certificate for the allotment of the land in favour of the respondent No. 6 who acting under the directions issued No Objection Certificate. Tehsildar thereafter forwarded the papers to the Collector, Tonk who, in turn, submitted the papers to the State Government and the State Government without inviting objections from the public and without issuing any public notice, vide order dated 25.1.93 sanctioned the allotment of 3 Bighas 4 Biswas of land out of 22 Bighas 8 Biswas of Khasra No. 1371 of Megh Sagar Dam to the respondent No. 6 for construction of water-hut, School premises, Boarding Houses and Play-ground for the students. On receipt of the sanction from the State Government the Collector, Tonk vide his order dated 19.4.93 ordered the allotment in favour of the respondent No. 6.Appellant-petitioners feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid allotment approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by way of public interest litigation and prayed that the order dated 25.1.93 and order dated 19.4.93 passed by the State Government and Collector, Tonk, Annexure-14 & Annexure-15 respectively to the writ petition may be quashed and further declaration was also sought that the land comparised in Khasra No. 1371 of village Diggi, should not have been allotted for the construction of School, Boarding House, Dharmshala and other allied purposes. The main challenge to the orders of allotment passed by the State Government and Collector, Tonk was based on the plea that Khasra No. 1371 is neither an agriculture land nor is unoccupied Government agriculture land and, therefore, the provisions of Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Unoccupied Government Agriculture Lands for Construction of Schools, Colleges, Dispensaries, Dharmshalas and other buildings of Public Utility) Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as "the Allotment Rules of 1963") were not applicable in the instant case and as such the allotment made in favour of the respondent No. 6 was wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. According to Rule 1 of Allotment Rules 1963 unoccupied Government agriculture land can only be allotted if Najool or Abadi land is not available in the whole village and even in that case the mandate of the Rule is that unoccupied Government land which is to be allotted should be in order of priority mentioned therein, i.e. firstly Banjar land should be allotted. If there is no Banjar land, then unoccupied Barani land may be allotted. If the same is also not available, then unoccupied Government agriculture land may be allotted, but according to the appellant petitioners Tank-bed land cannot be allotted under these Rules. It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellant-petitioners before the learned Single Judge that tank-bed land can be allotted only for the purposes of cultivation and that too under the provisions of Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Tank-bed and Lands for Cultivation) Rules, 1961. It was further alleged that the allotment of tank-bed land under the Rules of 1963 without public notice was violative of principles of natural justice. It was further alleged that the allotment of tank-bed land under the Rules of 1963 without public notice was violative of principles of natural justice. It was also urged before the learned Single Judge that the public property was being converted for private use by persons of a particular communited for private use by persons of a particular community which was contrary to the provisions of Rules of 1961 and the same should be stopped in the interest of public in large. The claim of the appellant-petitioners was con tested by the respondent No. 6 and a stand of the respondent No. 6 was that under Rules of 1963 the land in question could have been allotted for public utility purposes with the previous approval of the State Government and since the land was allotted with prior approval of the State Government the same was valid. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 6 also contended that infact the petitioners have not approached this court in public interest inasmuch as the public interest would be better served in case the School is run for the children of the agriculturists and a Dharmshala is constructed for the stay of the pilgrims coming to village Diggi for darshan of Shri Kalyanji Maharaj. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 6 also asserted that it was not alleged by the appellant petitioners that the land which has been allotted is sub-merged with water and the same is re-claimed for the purpose of construction of the building. The land which was allotted to the respondent No. 6 there are already buildings constructed on three sides of it and there was no hindrance to store of the water in the tank. It was also urged that Tank-bed Cultivation Rules of 1961 were not applicable in the instant case. The respondents also alleged that after the allotment made in their favour in April, 1993 they have started construction of the school building and they had spended approximately Rs. 5,00,000/-on the aforesaid building and if the construction were stopped it will cause irreparable loss to the farmers who have contributed for the construction of the school and Dharshala. The State Government justifying the allotment order asserted that the same is done in the public interest. 5,00,000/-on the aforesaid building and if the construction were stopped it will cause irreparable loss to the farmers who have contributed for the construction of the school and Dharshala. The State Government justifying the allotment order asserted that the same is done in the public interest. It was further contended on behalf of the State that the Collector was wholly authorised under Rule 1 of Allotment Rules of 1963 and the allotment was made after the approval of the State Government. It was further asserted on behalf of the State that the State Government had unlimited powers to allot any land for the purpose of public utility. It appears that the State Government did not agree to allot 5 Bighas of land as it was found that allotment of 5 bighas of land will bring the sub-merged area also under construction and that would amount to re-claiming of the land and, therefore, the State Government allotted only 3 bighas 4 biswas of land which is on a corner where nearby other buildings have also been constructed and it appears that the State Government was fully alive to the public interest while granting sanction and it cannot be said that the public interest has been harmed in any manner by the action of the State Government. 4. 4. The learned Single Judge after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the material on record allowed the writ petition in part however, the prayer for cancellation of the allotment was rejected, but while doing so the learned Single Judge issued following directions: "(a) The Executive Engineer Irrigation, District Tonk is directed to go on the spot along with Tehsildar and Patvari of the area concerned and make specific demarcation points at the places where the walls have been constructed and prepare a plan of existing situation, (b) That the aforesaid authorities shall ensure that no land beyond what is already re-claimed irrespective of the fact that the area covered is less than the allotted area, be permitted to be occupied by respondent No. 6, (c) That the Executive Engineer and Tehsildar and the Parvari shall complete their task within a period of one week from the date of communication of the order and it is only thereafter that the respondent No. 6 shall start further constructions on the land, (d) That the space shall be left for inflow of the water to the tank from the city area towards the old Bus-stand and the Ghats, (e) That the stones and the construction material if it is has fallen on this approach road shall be removed at the cost of the respondent No. 6, (f) That the ring wall on all the sides of the building shall be so raised that in no case make the water level of the tank in any manner, reduced, (g) That the respondent No. 6 shall not dump any garbage even after the construction is complete in the tank water nor the latrines or urinals shall be so constructed that the water of the tank is polluted in any manner, (h) That if any approach road is legally permitted by Panchayat or Municipality, as the case may be, connecting the area on the remaining two sides, it shall only be done by cantilever process so that the flow of the water is never obstructed. There will be no.-order as to costs." The appellants as well as the respondent No. 6 feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid order passed by the learned Single Judge have come up in these two special appeals. There will be no.-order as to costs." The appellants as well as the respondent No. 6 feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid order passed by the learned Single Judge have come up in these two special appeals. The appellants are aggrieved against the order in so far as it refuses to cancel the sanction order as well as the allotment order. The respondent No. 6 is aggrieved by issuance of the directions by the learned Single Judge inspite of the fact that none of the reliefs claimed for by the appellant petitioners in the writ petition were granted by the learned Single Judge.It appears that during the pendency of the special appeals a contempt petition has also been filed by Moolchand & ors. against Shri Pramod Kumar Govil, Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, Tonk, Shri Prabhu Dayal Gupta, Tehsildar, Malpura, District Tonk, Shri Gopal Singh Choudhary, Chairman, Jat Seva Samiti, Malpura, District Tonk-respondent No. 6. From the perusal of the order sheet it further reveals that when D. B. Civil Misc. Second Stay Application No. 144/94 came up for hearing before the Division Bench of this Court on 28.4.94 an order was passed by the Division Bench admitting the special appeal filed by Moolchand & ors. and it was observed by the Division Bench that : There are two sets of rules : one, "the 1961 Rules", which deal specifically with the power of the Government to allot tank-bed land; and the other, "the 1963 Rules", which deal with the allotment of unoccupied agricultural land for the purpose of construction of school, dharmshala etc. The former rules are specifically for the purposes of tank-bed lands, whereas, the latter rules are general rules. It was also observed that in view of the specific Rules of 1961, it requires to be examined whether the land could be allotted by resorting to the general Rules of 1963 and since this question requires consideration the special appeal was admitted. 5. We have heard Mr. P. S. Asopa, learned counsel for the appellant petitioners; Moolchand & Ors., Mr. Jagdeep Dankar Sr. Advocate with Mr. Praveen Balwada for the respondent No. 6-Jat Seva Samiti, Malpura and Miss Deepa Ajwani, Assistant G. A. for the State. The main thrust of the argument of Mr. 5. We have heard Mr. P. S. Asopa, learned counsel for the appellant petitioners; Moolchand & Ors., Mr. Jagdeep Dankar Sr. Advocate with Mr. Praveen Balwada for the respondent No. 6-Jat Seva Samiti, Malpura and Miss Deepa Ajwani, Assistant G. A. for the State. The main thrust of the argument of Mr. P. S. Asopa, learned counsel for the appellant petitioners is that since the land in question was tank bed land the said land could not have been allotted under the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Unoccupied Government Agricultural lands for the Construction of Schools, Colleges, Dispensaries, Dharamshalas & other buildings of public Utility) Rules, 1963 and in view of the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge that the land was allotted under the Rules of 1963 and the sanction order as well as the allotment order passed by the State Government as well as the Collector, Tonk were wholly void, illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction. He further contended that infact the Rules which can be applied in the instant case while making the allotment of the land in question in favour of the respondent No. 6 should be Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Tank-bed and lands for cultivation) Rules, 1961, but admittedly according to the finding of the learned Single Judge the land was not allotted to the respondent No. 6 under the Rules of 1961. The learned counsel for the appellant petitioners also contended in the alternative that even if the Rules of 1963 were held to be applicable then the tank-bed land will not be covered by the word "unoccupied Government agricultural lands". From the above submission a short question which arises for determination in these two appeals as also observed by the Division Bench of this Court at the time of admission of the appeal is whether; Rules of 1961 or Rules of 1963 would be applicable to the facts of the case. On the other hand, Mr. Jagdeep Dhankar, Sr. Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 6, Jat Seva Samiti, Malpura has candidly asserted that the Rules of 1963 were wholly applicable in the instant case and the allotment made under Rule 1 of Allotment Rules of 1963, the allotment was just, proper, in conformity with the Rules and was not contrary to any Act or Rules and was liable to be maintained. We have carefully perused the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge in which the learned Single Judge has clearly opined that : "So far as Tank-bed Allotment Rules of 1961 are concerned, it may be stated at the outset that the land under these Rules can only be allotted for the purpose of bed cultivation. These Rules have absolutely no bearing in the facts of the present case." From the said observation it appears that the learned Single Judge has categorically held that the Rules of 1961 were not applicable in the facts of the present case and impliedly the learned Single judge has arrived at the conclusion that the Rules of 1963 were fully applicable to the facts of the present case. Before, we proceed to appreciate the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant-petitioners as well as the respondent No. 6 regarding the applicability of Rules of 1961 or Rules of 1963, we would like to refer to Rules of 1961 first as under :Rules of 1961: Rule (1) of the Rules of 1961 lays down that the Rules shall be called the "Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Tank-bed Lands for Cultivation) Rules, 1961", The interpretation of the word "the Act" shall mean the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, - The words "tank-bed lands" shall mean Government lands situated in the beds of tanks or rivers, other than such lands in which Khatedari rights had accrued prior to amendment of clause (ii) of Section 16 of the Tenancy Act by the Rajasthan Revenue Laws (Extension) Act, 1957, (Rajasthan Act 2 of 1958) and other than lands held on Ghair Khatedari tenure, - The words "Tenancy Act" shall mean the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, (Rajasthan Act 3 of 1955), - Rule 3 of the Rules of 1961 deals with procedure for allotment of tank bed land for cultivation, - Rule 7 lays down that the allotment shall be made by Tehsildar in consultation with the Advisory Committee appointed for the Tehsil under Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Land for Agricultural Purpose) Rules, 1957; and the provisions of (XXX) 4 the said rule shall apply, - Rule 8 lays down that the maximum area to be allotted under these rules to each successful applicant shall not exceed five standard bighas. The total land of allotted shall not exceed 10 acres inclusive of the land allotted and any land already held by such allottee. From the perusal of Rules of 1961 it is abundantly clear that the said Rules deal exclusively with the allotment of tank-bed land for cultivation alone, meaning thereby that the tank-bed land can be allotted under the Rules of 1961 only for the purposes of cultivation. In the present case the land has not been allotted for the purpose of cultivation but for construction of Dharamshalas, Schools, Boarding Houses and allied purposes therefore, the only conclusion to which we can arrive is that the provisions of Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Tank-Bed and lands for Cultivation) Rules, 1961 were not applicable in the facts of the case. Therefore, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant-petitioners that the Rules of 1961 were applicable deserves to be turned down and consequently the same is rejected. We are of the definite view that the aforesaid Rules of 1961 were not applicable in the facts of the present case. The only question in our opinion which requires consideration is whether the provisions of Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Unoccupied Government Agriculture Lands for Construction of Schools, Colleges, Dispensaries, Dharamshalas and other buildings of public utility) Rules, 1963 were applicable to the facts of the case, whether the allotment orders passed by the State Government as well as the Collector, Tonk are in confirmity with the said Rules of 1963 ? Before recording the positive finding, we would like to refer to the aforesaid Rules of 1963 also : Rules of 1963 : - Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Unoccupied Government Agriculture Lands for the Construction of Schools, Colleges, Dispensaries, Dharamshalas & Other Buildings of Public Utility) Rules, 1963 were framed in July, 1963 by the Government of Rajasthan in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 102 of Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, - The significant word used in the said Rules of 1963 are "Unoccupied Government agricultural land". - Rule 1 deals with the class of land which can be allotted under the aforesaid Rules, which runs asunder: "If Nazool or Abadi land is not available unoccupied Government agricultural land classified as Banjar, or uncultivated Barani, may be allotted. - Rule 1 deals with the class of land which can be allotted under the aforesaid Rules, which runs asunder: "If Nazool or Abadi land is not available unoccupied Government agricultural land classified as Banjar, or uncultivated Barani, may be allotted. Provided that if land of any other category is required, the previous approval of the State Government in Revenue Department shall be obtained." Rule 1 of the Rules of 1963 in our opinion is very significant and goes to the very route (sic root) of the case. Rule 2 deals with the purpose and maximum area to be allotted. The purpose which has been mentioned in the said Rule in our opinion is quite exhaustive and in the list of purpose Primary Schools, Middle Schools, High Schools, Higher Secondary & Multipurpose Schools or Senior Teacher's Certificate Schools, Degree and Post-graduate Colleges, All types of Dispensaries, Primary Health Centres, Panchayat Chars, Dharmshalas, Temples, Gurudwara, Mosques or other religious places and other buildings of Public utility have come. The most glaring feature of Rule 3 of the Rules of 1963 is that the allotment for the purpose shall be made free of cost. It is also mentioned in the said Rule that if the land is allotted for the purpose as mentioned in Rule 2 and if any construction is not started within one year from the date of allotment then the land shall vest in the Government. Rule 4. Allotting Authority. - If the land is required by a society or association, registered or unregistered, or by some other private body, or an individual or individuals, the Collector shall obtain the previous approval of the State Government in the Revenue Department before making the allotment. In the instant case, according to the facts admitted by the appellant-petitioners as mentioned in para 10 of the writ petition the land was allotted for constructing a Dharmshala and other public uses. In the instant case, according to the facts admitted by the appellant-petitioners as mentioned in para 10 of the writ petition the land was allotted for constructing a Dharmshala and other public uses. We have also perused Annexure-14, dated 25.1.93 to the writ petition which is the sanction accorded by Shri Radheyshyam Rajoria, Deputy Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan, Department of Revenue for allotment of 3 Bigha 4 Biswa of land out of 22 Bigha 8 Biswa of Khasra No. 1371 of village Diggi for the purpose as under : an style='font-family:Ankit' HINDI MATTER /b/spanIn pursuance of the aforesaid sanction dated 25.1.93 accorded by the State Government the Collector, Tonk vide order dated 19.4.93, Annexure-15 to the writ petition, made allotment in favour of the respondent No. 6 under the Allotment Rules of 1963 for the purpose as under : an style='font-family:Ankit' HINDI MATTER /b/spanMr. Jagdeep Dhankar, Sr. Counsel for the respondent No. 6 contended that the word "Land" has been defined under Section 5 (24) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, and according to the said definition even the land covered with water will also be a land within the meaning of word "Land" and on the basis of said submission he contended that the stand taken by the appellant-petitioners that as the land in question is tank-bed in character the same cannot be treated as an agricultural land, is frivolous. In order to test the validity of the said submission, we would like to refer to the provisions of section 5(24) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, as under : "Section 5(24). "Land" shall mean land which is let or held for agricultural purposes or for purposes subservient thereto or as grove land or for pasturage, including land occupied by houses or enclosures situated on a holding, or land covered with water which may be used for the purpose of irrigation or growing singhaara or other similar produce but excluding abadi land, it shall include benefits to arise out of land and things attached to the earth or permanently fastened to anything attached to earth." From the above it appears that even if it is assumed that the land in question was tank-bed in character and was not agricultural land the word "land" shall embrace within its definition even tank-bed. Mr. Jagdeep Dhankar, Sr. Mr. Jagdeep Dhankar, Sr. Counsel for the respondent No. 6 further contends that all lands not property of individuals or of bodies of persons legally capable of holding property or the property of the State the same can be disposed of by the State Government and on the basis of his submission he further contends that even the tank bed is the property of the State Government and in support of his contention he placed reliance upon Section 88(1) of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, which reads as under : "Section 88(1). All roads etc. and all lands which are not the property of others belong to the State-(1) All public roads, lanes, paths, bridges and ditches; all fences on or beside the same; all rivers, streams, nallas, lakes and tanks, all canals and water courses, all standing and flowing water; and all lands wherever situated; which are not the property of individuals or of bodies of persons legally capable of holding property, are, except in so far as any rights of such persons or bodies may be established in or over the same and except as may be otherwise provided in any law for the time being in force, and are hereby declared to be, with all rights in or over the same or appurtaining thereto, the property of the State; and it shall be lawful for the Collector subject to the order of the (State Government) to dispose of them". Mr. Jagdeep Dhankar, Sr. Counsel for the respondent No. 6 further contended that under Section 102 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, the Government has power to allot the land for the purpose of public utility. Section 102 of the Act, 1956, reads as under: "102. Power of Government to allot land for purposes other than agricultural as well as on special terms. - Notwithstanding anything hereinfore contained, the State Government shall have power to allot land for the purpose of an industry or for any purpose of public utility on such conditions as it deems fit." To sum up the arguments advanced by Mr. Jagdeep Dhankar, Sr. - Notwithstanding anything hereinfore contained, the State Government shall have power to allot land for the purpose of an industry or for any purpose of public utility on such conditions as it deems fit." To sum up the arguments advanced by Mr. Jagdeep Dhankar, Sr. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 6 the submissions which have been made are that : (i) All lands not property of individuals or of bodies of persons legally capable of holding property or the property of the State the same can be disposed of by the State Government and even the tank-bed is the property of the State Government as defined under Section 88(1) of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956; (ii) Land as defined under Section 11(24) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 will include even the land which is tank-bed in character; (iii) Section 102 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, empowers the State Government to allot land for the purpose of public utility; (iv) The allotment has been made in favour of the respondent No. 6 under the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Unoccupied Government Agricultural Lands for the Construction of Schools, Colleges, Dispensaries, Dharamshalas & Other Buildings of Public Utility) Rules, 1963 which have been framed by the Government of Rajasthan in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 102 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 and the same is made with the prior approval of the State Government therefore, the allotment order is wholly in confirmity with the Rules of 1963 and does not infringe any law, Act or Rules and are liable to be maintained. 6. We have given our thoughtful, consideration of the argument advanced by Mr. Jagdeep Dhankar, Sr. 6. We have given our thoughtful, consideration of the argument advanced by Mr. Jagdeep Dhankar, Sr. Counsel for the respondent No. 6 and we find that the arguments advanced has sufficient force and as such the conclusion to which we can arrive from the perusal of provisions of Section 88(1) of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, definition of 'Land' as defined under Section 11(24) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, Section 102 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 and Rules of 1963 that the allotment made in favour of the respondent No. 6 under the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Unoccupied Government Agricultural Lands for the Construction of Schools, Colleges, Dispensaries, Dharamshalas & Other public Utility) Rules, 1963 of the land in question is perfectly valid and is not liable to be cancelled on any ground whatsoever. Lastly, Mr. Jagdeep Dhankar, Sr. Counsel for the respondent No. 6 contended that once the learned Single Judge declined to cancel the allotment order, he traveled beyond the reliefs sought by the appellant-petitioners in the writ petition in issuing the directions which according to the respondents were detrimental to their interest. Before, expressing any opinion on the said submission of the learned counsel for the respondent No. 6, we would like to refer to following two reliefs which were claimed by the appellant petitioners in the writ petition, as under : "(i) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, in the nature thereof the Orders of the State Government dated 25.1.93 (Annexure-14) sanctioning allotment of 3 Bigha 4 Biswas of land out of Khasra No. 1371 of village Diggi, Tehsil Malpura, District Tonk and the order of Allotment dated 19.4.93 (Annexure-15), of Collector, Tonk allotting 3 Bigha 4 Biswas of land of Khasra No. 1371 of village Diggi Tehsil Malpura, District Tonk in favour of non-petitioner No. 6 may kindly be cancelled; (ii) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, in the nature thereof, it be declared that the lands comprised in Khasra No. 1371 of village Diggi of Megh Sagar Dam are not liable to be allotted for the purposes of constructing School Building, Boarding House, Dharamshal and other allied purposes and the non-petitioners No. 1 and 4 may be restrained from allotting the said lands." The learned single Judge did not grant the reliefs claimed by the appellant petitioners. He neither cancelled the Sanction Order of the State Government dated 25.1.93 (Annexure-14) & Allotment Order of the Collector, Tonk dated 19.4.93 (Annexure-15) nor the respondents No. 1 and 4 are restrained from allotting the lands. The learned Single Judge also did not categorically record any finding that the land in question was not liable to be allotted. In view of the said fact, we are of the opinion that the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 6 cannot be brushed aside and deserves to be accepted. 7. For the reasons stated above, we are of the opinion that once the learned Single Judge declined to cancel the allotment orders the directions issued were wholly uncalled for the in the circumstances of the case and the writ petition was liable to be dismissed in toto. 8. Mr. P.S. Asopa, learned counsel for the appellant-petitioners vehemently urged that the Rules of 1961 is Special Law hence will prevail over the General Rules of 1963. In support of his contention he placed reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court in: Prof. Sumer Chand Vs. Union of India & Ors., 1993 (2) U.J. (SC) 599 , From the perusal of the facts and the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the said case, it appears that the period of limitation prescribed under Delhi Police Act, 1978 for filing suits against persons governed by the Act was different from the limitation prescribed in the schedule to the Limitation Act.The Apex Court held that the limitation prescribed under Delhi Police Act, 1978 which was special law will prevail over the general law i.e. the Indian Limitation Act. In our opinion, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant petitioners is wholly fallacious and infact what has been held by us earlier the apology sought to be applied in the instant case has no relevance at-all. The learned counsel for the appellant-petitioners further contended that the Government is the only custodian of the public property and without inviting objections the Government could not permit the conversion of the land of public utility. In support of his contention he placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in : Bangalore Medical Trust Vs. The learned counsel for the appellant-petitioners further contended that the Government is the only custodian of the public property and without inviting objections the Government could not permit the conversion of the land of public utility. In support of his contention he placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in : Bangalore Medical Trust Vs. B.S. Muddappa & Ors., AIR 1991 (SC) 1902 , A perusal of the facts of the Bangalore Medical Trust (supra) indicates that in the said case the public park was being converted into a private nursing home which was held to be not permissible. With great respect, we have no hesitation in saying that the facts of the said case are wholly different and the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Bangalore Medical Trust (supra) does not strengthen the case of the appellant-petitioners and the said contention of Mr. P.S. Asopa, also falls to the ground. Lastly, Mr. P.S. Asopa, made futile attempt to canvass before us on the basis of the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court rendered in : Nizam & Ors. Vs. J.D.A. & Ors., 1993 (1) RLR 58 = WLR 1993 (3) 542 , that the land in question could not have been allotted by the Collector and the respondents. We have perused the facts of the aforesaid case in which the question was "whether an open space/spaces reserved as per approved scheme under the Rules of 1975 could be allotted by J. D. A. to a private person/body for a School." We have no manner of doubt in expressing our opinion that the facts of the said case are also wholly irrelevant inasmuch as in the instant case the land belonging to the State Government has been allotted for the purpose mentioned under Rules of 1963 after following the procedure and the anology on the facts as well as on the law of the said citation cannot be applied and the said submission of the learned counsel for the appellant-petitioners deserves to be discarded. No other submission has been made before us by the learned counsel for the appellant-petitioners to invalidate the allotment orders passed by the State Government as well as the Collector, Tonk. No other submission has been made before us by the learned counsel for the appellant-petitioners to invalidate the allotment orders passed by the State Government as well as the Collector, Tonk. We, therefore, reiterate our opinion expressed earlier that the allotment made in favour of the respondent No. 6 by the State Government and the Collector was wholly valid. 9. Mr. Jagdeep Dhankar, Sr. Counsel for the respondent No. 6 vehemently challenged the issuance of the directions by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order. He contended that it is well settled preposition of law that while exercising the judicial review the court neither acts as a Court of Appeal nor substitutes its own wisdom/opinion for that of the authority concerned. He further contended that the Court while exercising the judicial review should have only considered whether the procedure laid down for allotment as provided under Rules 1963 was complied with or not, but the learned Single Judge after declining to cancel the allotment orders substituted its own opinion and committed a patent error in issuing the directions. In support of his contention he placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in : Sterling Computers Limited V/s. M/s. M & N Publications Limited and others, 1993 (1) SCC 445 . Before we express any opinion on the applicability of the said case, we would like to refer to the brief facts of the aforesaid case which are as under : It appears that tenders for publication of telephone directories for Delhi and Bombay were invited. An agreement dated March 14, 1987 was executed by Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. (MTNL) whereunder UIP was to publish directories every year for a period of five years from 1987 to 1991 for Delhi and Bombay separately and was to pay an amount of Rs. 20.16 crores as royalty to the MTNL and to supply the MTNL directories free of cost with reference to the number of subscribers. UIP was also to supply the same number of supplementary directories which were to be published six months after the publication of the annual issue. The annual issue of the directory was to be published in November/ December every year. UIP was also to supply the same number of supplementary directories which were to be published six months after the publication of the annual issue. The annual issue of the directory was to be published in November/ December every year. UIP was given the exclusive right for procurement of the advertisements in the yellow pages, which were to contain advertisements under different headings, as well as strips, bond and extra entries in the white pages. The rates of such advertisements were to be fixed by the UIP for each issue of the directory. It was also stipulated that if UIP committed any default or breach of the terms and conditions of the agreement or failed in the due performance thereof within the time fixed (which was the essence of the contract) the MTNL shall be entitled to recover from the UIP compensation or liquidated damages. The agreement also provided that MTNL without prejudice to other rights, could by notice in writing determine the contract. However, UIP defaulted and committed breach of the terms of the agreement inasmuch as directories for Delhi were published only for the years 1987 and 1988 and for Bombay only for the year 1987. For the year 1987, Delhi issue was published after a delay of seven months and that of Bombay after six months. For the year 1988 the Delhi issue of the directory was published only in August 1990 after a delay of two years. There was no publication of directories for Delhi for the years 1989, 1990 and 1991. Similarly there was no publication of directories in respect of Bombay for the years 1988, 1989, 1990 and 1991. Accordingly on September 26, 1991 a supplemental agreement was entered into between UIP, MTNL, UDI and Sterling whereby Sterling was to carry out the unexecuted portion of the agreement with UIP. By this date the period of the original agreement dated March 14, 1987 between the MTNL and the UIP had expired, still the supplemental agreement stated that subject to UIP/UDI and Sterling successfully completing the unexecuted job within the stipulated time frame "MTNL shall extend the original contract for three more issues each for Delhi and Bombay". Accordingly Sterling was to print and publish 13 main issues of Delhi and Bombay directories within a period of seven years including the years 1991 on payment of additional royalty of only Rs. Accordingly Sterling was to print and publish 13 main issues of Delhi and Bombay directories within a period of seven years including the years 1991 on payment of additional royalty of only Rs. 10 crores to the MTNL over and above the royalty stipulated in the original agreement by the UIP. It was left to the UIP/UDI to receive all revenue earnings on account (past and future) from the advertisements and MTNL was to be only informed about the prices as fixed. A writ petition was filed questioning the validity and legality of the supplemental agreement on, different grounds including on ground of malafide. The High Court came to the conclusion that supplemental agreement dated September 26, 1991 cannot be held to be the extension of the original agreement dated March 14, 1987. In appeal filed by the Sterling Computer Ltd. the judgment of the High Court was affirmed. From the narration of the aforesaid facts it is evident that in the case of Sterling Computers Ltd. (supra) the question related to the grant of contract by the State Government whereas, in the instant case no contract has been granted by the State Government in favour of the respondent No. 6 and in our opinion, the case of Sterling Computers Ltd. (supra) is wholly irrelevant and the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the said case also appears to be different to the facts of the present case. However, after careful consideration of the facts of the case, we have no hesitation in saying that once the learned Single Judge declined to grant any of the reliefs claimed by the appellant-petitioners in the writ petition the order of the learned Single Judge allowing the petition in part as well as issuing the directions was not valid and legal and in our opinion, the same is not sustainable. We are also of the confirmed and considered opinion that on the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge, the learned Single Judge should have dismissed the petition filed by the appellant petitioners in toto. 10. For the reasons stated above, in our opinion, the order passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained and deserves to be quashed. 11. In the result, D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 190/94 (Moolchand & Ors. 10. For the reasons stated above, in our opinion, the order passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained and deserves to be quashed. 11. In the result, D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 190/94 (Moolchand & Ors. V/s. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) fails and is accordingly dismissed and D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 289/94 (The Jat Seva Samiti, Malpura Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.) succeeds and is allowed and the order of the learned Single Judge is quashed. Consequently, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4414/1993 Moolchand & Ors. V/s. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.) stands dismissed. 12. Parties are left to bear their own costs.Spl. Appeal No. 190/94 Dismissed and SPL Appeal No. 289/94 Allowed. *******