JUDGMENT 1. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This intra Court appeal is directed against the order dated 23.02.2012 passed by the Single Bench, whereby S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5932/2011, filed by petitioners, has been dismissed. 3. Petitioners/appellants preferred a writ petition before the Single Bench challenging the order dated 26.05.2010 passed by the Gram Panchayat Karnikot, whereby Patta No. 9 has been issued in favour of Rajiv Gandhi Seva Kendra for the land measuring 50'X50'. Petitioners have also challenged the order dated 31.03.2011 passed by the Additional District Collector, Alwar, whereby their revision petition against the order of Gram Panchayat, has been dismissed. 4. Learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition of petitioners. Hence, they have preferred this intra Court appeal. 5. Submission of the learned counsel for appellants is that the land has been allotted out of school land, which could not have been allotted. He further submitted that the allotment order has not been confirmed by the Zila Parishad concerned, therefore, allotment is contrary to Rule 162 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1996'). 6. Learned counsel for respondents submitted that the land in dispute was not recorded in the name of school, which is clear from the documents annexed with the reply as well as additional affidavit. He has also referred the letters of Gram Panchayat, Patwari and Tehsildar concerned in this regard. 7. So far as another submission regarding Rule 162 of the Rules of 1996 is concerned, he has submitted that no such fact was pleaded in the writ petition nor any submission in this regard was made before the Single Bench, therefore, no reply to it was given and appellants cannot be allowed to take any new ground, which was not pleaded in the writ petition. He further submitted that the land has been allotted as per direction of the State Government, therefore, it is wrong on the part of the appellants to state that allotment is contrary to Rule 162 of the Rules of 1996. 8. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned order of the Single Bench as well as Additional District Collector and also the order passed by the Gram Panchayat. 9. 8. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned order of the Single Bench as well as Additional District Collector and also the order passed by the Gram Panchayat. 9. From the facts available on the record, it reveals that the land in dispute, measuring 50'X50', was allotted for raising construction of Rajiv Gandhi Seva Kendra, as per direction of the State Government, by the Gram Panchayat Karnikot. The Revisional Authority dismissed the revision petition of petitioners against allotment order on the ground that petitioners have no locus standi and further that the petitioners had earlier instituted a suit, which was got dismissed as withdrawn. 10. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition of petitioners on the ground that petitioners have no locus standi to file the writ petition and also on the ground that writ petition has been filed without seeking any liberty while getting their suit dismissed, instituted in the Civil Court. 11. So far as the first submission of the learned counsel for appellants about allotment of land belonging to school is concerned, the same is not tenable. From the documents available on the record, reply to writ petition and the additional affidavit, filed by respondents, it is clear that the land in dispute was entered as 'Abadi' land and is not in the name of school. The Gram Panchayat had the jurisdiction to allot the land. 12. So far as another submission of learned counsel for appellants about violation of Rule 162 of the Rules of 1996 is concerned, we find that the said ground was neither pleaded in the writ petition, nor argued before the learned Single Judge. Whether any confirmation by the Zila Parishad in respect of allotment order was given or not, is purely a question of fact. Since this ground was not pleaded and agitated in the writ petition, therefore, no reply could come on record. Hence, appellants are not allowed and cannot be allowed to agitate the said point in this intra Court appeal directly. 13. That apart, there is no dispute that the land has been allotted by the Gram Panchayat as per policy and direction of the State Government, therefore, we find no merit in any of the submissions advanced on behalf of appellants. 14. 13. That apart, there is no dispute that the land has been allotted by the Gram Panchayat as per policy and direction of the State Government, therefore, we find no merit in any of the submissions advanced on behalf of appellants. 14. In view of above discussion, we find no merit in this intra Court appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. The stay application also stands dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******