JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material -I placed before us. 2. It appears that agricultural land Khasra No. 445 and 447 of the Government land was converted into abadi land by the then Gram Panchayat Ban of Panchayat Samiti Badgaon in village Dewali and allotment was made 5 CO C4 retain persons. This petition relates to 113 persons who were allotted the land in the aforesaid Khasra numbers. By order dated 18.9.1985 the Collector cancelled the allotment inter alia on the ground that the part of the land which has been sold at too low price notwithstanding the same being nearer to Udaipur town. The extension of abadi land shall result in effecting the environment as it is situated near the lake Fatehsagar and also the allotment have been made contrary to the rules. This order was made in exercise of Section 27-A of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1950 then in force and the rules framed thereunder. 3. The affected parties had challenged the said order dated 18.9.1985 15 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The said writ petition was disposed of by the Supreme Court without setting aside the order dated 18.9.1985 by directing the petitioners to make representation to the Collector, Udaipur within two months against the cancellation the allotment and the Collector was dire:led to pass appropriate orders after taking into consideration the 20 representations. The Supreme Court passed these orders dated 13.8.1990 in respect of all 113 petitioners before the Supreme Court of which 104 allottees made representations and 9 persons did not make any representation even after expiry of two months or until the case was decided by the Collector on 15.2.1991. 4. The Collector found that out of 104 representations received by him, representations were in respect of plots which have been allotted free of cost and 34 representations were of those who were allotted on payment of price. 5. The Collector after seeking report found that each of the 70 allottees of land free of cost were already having their own houses constructed otherwise than the land in question even prior to the allotment of the land. 5. The Collector after seeking report found that each of the 70 allottees of land free of cost were already having their own houses constructed otherwise than the land in question even prior to the allotment of the land. It was also found in most of the cases that allotments nave been made where allottees have given wrong descriptions of their parents or community as most of them were not members of Scheduled caste/Scheduled tribes/backward class for whose benefit the rule for allotment free of cost was made. In five cases, allotments were made to women whose husbands were alive and were earning and they were found to be not in accordance with the criteria laid down for allotment, free of cost. It was also found that none of the allottees of land free of cost, were considered to be within the preview of relevant provisions. Hence all the allotments made free of cost for this land were cancelled. 6. Referring to the allotments made to 34 applicants who had made representations, it was found that each one of them has been allotted plots of 60 ft.x 40ft. for price ranging between 1200 to 1400 per plot in 1983-84. No as record has been maintained nor any prior delineation of the plot were made in any case. In fact, because of the non-demarcation of the allotted plots. registration of the sale in their favour also has not been carried out. Other irregularities in allotment of plots were pointed out. 7. Similarly, the Collector has also examined the case of 9 persons who have not submitted representation and found to be suffering from like irregularities. Consequently, he cancelled all the allotments of the land so converted. 8. Primarily, the challenge was made to these orders on the ground that under section 27-A providing for revision of such allotments the Collector has no jurisdiction to cancel the plots allotted by the Panchayat and provisions were also challenged as ultra vires. The challenge to Section 27-A since come to an end when a Division Bench of this Court has held this provision to be valid and the Court recorded on 11.1.1996 that the petitioner gives up the challenge to the validity of Section 27-A of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (General) Rules, 1961 (Sic Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1950). 9. The challenge to Section 27-A since come to an end when a Division Bench of this Court has held this provision to be valid and the Court recorded on 11.1.1996 that the petitioner gives up the challenge to the validity of Section 27-A of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (General) Rules, 1961 (Sic Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1950). 9. In these circumstances as the order passed by the Collector is in exercise of his jurisdiction and founded on valid grounds, no interference is 15 called for in this petition. 10. The petition, therefore fails and is hereby dismissed. 11. No orders as to costs.Appeal Dismissed. *******