JUDGMENT 1. - Admitted facts are that Khasra No. 276 measuring 12 Biswa, Khasra No. 277 measuring 1 Bigha 6 Biswa, Khasra No. 278 measuring 2 Bighas 2 Biswa and Khasra No. 279 measuring 11 Biswa totalling 4 Bigha 11 Biswa situated in village Paladi Meena, Tehsil Sanganer within the radius of three miles if Municipal limits of city of Jaipur having a population of more than nine lass at the time of filing of the writ petition, was allotted vide Annexure-23 dated 14.12.1982 and Annexure-24 dated, 13.1.1983 to the respondents Shri Rajeev Mathur and Ravi Mathur sons of Om Prakash Mathur, both residents of 'Chaman Villa', 29, Hathroi Fort, Sanjay Marg, Jaipur. The petitioner states that the impugned orders of allotment have been made in favour of private respondents totally in violation and contravention of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Land For Agricultural Purposes) Rules, 1970. The petitioner states that this land was not available for allotment under the said rules of 1970 in view of Rule 4 of the said rules. Rule 4(5) of the said rules states that the following catgory of lands shall not be available for allotment for agricultural purposes under these rules, namely; 4 Land not available for allotment under these rules:-The following categories of lands shall not be available for allotment for agricultural purposes under these rules namely: (v) Lands within:- (a) a radius of three miles of municipal limits of cities having a population of five lacs or more; (b) a radius of two miles of municipal limits of towns with a population of two lacs or more, but below five lass; (c) a radius of one mile of municipal limits of towns with a population of one lac or more, but below two lacs; (d) municipal limits of any other towns; (e) one hundred yards of a railway fencing, or (f) fifty yards from the centre of national highway or any other mettled or gravelled road.' 2. Apart from the fact it is stated that the land was not available for allotment and even if the land was allotable under the rules, in that situation also the land could not have been allotted to the petitioner until and unless the applications from all eligible persons as required under Rule 11 were invited. Apart from the fact it is stated that the land was not available for allotment and even if the land was allotable under the rules, in that situation also the land could not have been allotted to the petitioner until and unless the applications from all eligible persons as required under Rule 11 were invited. Rule 11 states that the land shall be allotted only to landless persons as defined under the Tenancy Act and to the extent that he is landless and if there is one applicant on account of a particular plot, it shall be allotted to him and in case there are more than one applicant requiring the same plot of land, it should be allotted to them as per the priority fixed u/s.101(4) of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act. Rule 13 states that the allotment is to be made in consultation with the advise of the allotment committee and rule 14 prescribes certain conditions of allotment. Rule 17 prescribes that notwithstanding anything contained in the rules, the Government in the revenue department shall have the powers to allot the land to any person subject to the provisions of Rule 101 of the Act and condition of allotment contained in Rule 14. Rule 19 is an enabling provision for allotment of small strip or patch adjoining to the field of the khatedar tenant on the application made by such tenant. 3. The private respondent Nos. 3 and 4 who are said to be owning about 3 Bigha of land and not doing any cultivation of land is said to have applied for allotment of land of the khasra numbers in question as mentioned above for agricultural purposes. The petitioner submits that as a matter of fact Ravi Mathur was aged 16 years and was a student of XI class whereas Rajeev Mathur was 21 years of age and was a student of college at that time and none of them had done any cultivation in their own land khasra Nos. 274 and 275. Rather they had rented the land to one Rajesh Motors which is doing its business of body-building of construction of trucks on the said land. 274 and 275. Rather they had rented the land to one Rajesh Motors which is doing its business of body-building of construction of trucks on the said land. The petitioner submits that rather the petitioner was doing the cultivation with Khasra No. 276 to 279 as per the revenue record and if the land was to be allotted, in that situation, the land should have been allotted to the petitioners only which fact he wants to prove from the receipts of penalities being paid to him every year under section 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act. 4. Attention is also invited to Annexure-15, letter of the Deputy Collector, Jaipur to the effect that the land in question falls within the Municipal limits of Jaipur and is not eligible under the rules. Annexure-16 states a letter of Tehsildar, Sanganer addressed to the District Collector to the effect that there is no cultivation in khasra Nos. 276 to 279, but was in possession of one Narendra Kumar and falls within the Municipal limits of Jaipur. Another enquiry was made by the Tehsildar Sanganer to the effect that the land in question had been rented out by the respondents to certain truck owners. Even the Collector on 8.1.1979 vide Annexure-17 and the Deputy Secretary (Revenue) vide Annexure-18 on 20.3.1980 had reported that the land in question is not allotable under the Rules of 1970. Just after 3 months of the order Annexure-18 the Collector takes a somar sault and recommends that the land be allotted to Rajeev Mathur and Ravi Mathur and approval is being sought from the Deputy Secretary (Revenue) after fixing the price at Rs. 5,000/- per bigha vide Annexures-21, 22 and 23, and ultimately the land is allotted to private non-petitioners on the rate fixed therein. 5. Reply has been filed by the respondent Nos. 3 and 4. It is admitted that they had applied for allotment of this land to the Commissioner, Revenue Department on the ground that they were already in possession of 3 Bigha of land, therefore, they should be allotted another land from Khasra Nos. 276 to 279 measuring 4 Bighas 12 Biswas. The petitioners who were said to be in possession of the land are effected and there are certain police proceedings between the petitioner and the respondent Nos. 3 and 4. 6. 276 to 279 measuring 4 Bighas 12 Biswas. The petitioners who were said to be in possession of the land are effected and there are certain police proceedings between the petitioner and the respondent Nos. 3 and 4. 6. On the facts mentioned above, the question for determination is whether only because of the reason that the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 were possessing about 3 Bigha of land; could they be allotted more land measuring 4 Bigha and 12 Biswa of land under the said rules and whether the land having been falling under the municipal area of Jaipur, was at all allotable or whether this 4 Bighas and 12 Biswa of land can be treated as a small strip of land and in any case even if assuming the land was allotable whether the land could have been allotted in the manner it had been allotted by the authorities without inviting application. The petitioners have alleged malafide on the ground that the respondents were related to one Shri Shiv Charan Mathur who was a political entity as Chief Minister of Rajasthan. 7. Facts speak for themselves. The land is not allotable under Rule 4 of the rules for being falling under the municipal area. Right from 1978 to 1980, the Tehsildar, Collector and even the Deputy Secretary (Revenue) had been rejecting the requests for allotment of land to the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 on the ground that the land falls within the Municipal area and is not allotable. All of a sudden just after three months of rejection of the last request, some wisdom comes on the Collector by saying that it was a small strip of land and be allotted to respondent Nos. 3 and 4 vide Annexures 22, 23 and 24 etc. at the rate fixed therein. If the land was to be allotted, even assuming it to be allotable under the rules, it was the primary duty of the respondents to have advertised the land for disposal and should have invited applications by fixing a proper rate which was prevailing at the relevant time in the area or even could have put the land for auction which has not been done in the present case. The observation of the Collector that 4 Bigha 12 Biswa is a small strip of land adjoining to the land of respondent Nos. The observation of the Collector that 4 Bigha 12 Biswa is a small strip of land adjoining to the land of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 measuring 3 Bigha of land is nothing but a mockery of the application of the rules. It is a clear case of favouratism shown to respondent Nos. 3 and 4 by the Government and its officers for the reasons best known to it and it seems that the petitioners were not wrong in saying that the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 seem to have been favoured because of some political push. 8. The Government has not chosen to file the reply in the present case. Even though an order was made at the time of hearing of the case to produce the complete record of the Government and of the Collector in regard to allotment of khasras involved in favour of the respondents including the notification within 2 weeks from 6.10.1998, the respondents had failed to produce any such record what-so-ever. There is a clear violation of the rules and the action of the respondents is definitely discriminatory and arbitrary. if the rules provide for allotment of any land in a particular way such allotment by way of sale should be open to every person who may be eligible for purchase of the same. The Government can take a decision of making the allotment on priority basis or on auction basis, but in this case even though the Government was of the view right upto April 1980 that the land is not allotable under the Ruls of 1970, but all of a sudden, the Collector takes a contrary view and deverse (sic reverse) its own division (sic decision) and recommends the allotment to respondent Nos. 3 and 4 only. In such circumstances, there is no alternative but to hold that the allotment made in favour of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 was neither bonafide nor in accordance with the rules and the allotment to respondent Nos. 3 and 4 of Khasra Nos. 276 to 279 is set aside for the reasons mentioned above and the impugned orders annexure-23 and annexure-24 dated 31.1.82 are quashed. 3 and 4 was neither bonafide nor in accordance with the rules and the allotment to respondent Nos. 3 and 4 of Khasra Nos. 276 to 279 is set aside for the reasons mentioned above and the impugned orders annexure-23 and annexure-24 dated 31.1.82 are quashed. It is further directed that the State shall take immediate steps to retrieve the land from the persons who are in possession and if it wants to dispose of the land, it shall be disposed of by way of auction only after proper publication and publicity in the news papers as per Rules.The writ petition is allowed with the abovesaid observation and with a cost of Rs. 5,000/- which shall be equally paid by respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4, the then Collector who had passed the impugned illegal order.Petition Allowed with costs. *******