JUDGMENT 1. - Petitioner Devendra Kaur has preferred this writ petition for assailing the impugned order dated 23rd of May 2013 (Annex.5) passed by the learned Addl. District Collector (Vigilance), Sri Ganganagar, whereby her revision petition under Section 97 of the Panchayati Raj Act 1994 (for short, Act of 1994) was rejected. 2. The facts, apposite for the purpose of this writ petition, are that the petitioner laid a revision petition under Section 97 of the Act of 1994 challenging allotment of a residential plot No.19 measuring 50 x 100 by Gram Panchayat Motasar in favour of 4th respondent, inter-alia, on the ground that earlier the said plot was allotted to her husband by the Gram Panchayat on 24th of March 1989 and while making allotment free of charge in favour of 4th respondent, there was apparent error in demarcation of the plot which was already allotted to her. The learned Addl. District Collector (Vigilance) Sri Ganganagar, after hearing the rival parties, declined to interfere in the matter precisely on the ground that the petitioner has not placed on record the order of allotment and Patta issued in her husband's name and furthermore the concerned Gram Panchayat has not made available the requisite record to show the alleged earlier allotment. That apart, the learned Addl. Collector has also observed that in want of requisite record, it is not possible to accept the contention of the petitioner that part of Plot No.21 has been converted as Plot No.19 and thereafter allotted to the private respondent. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order passed by the learned Addl. District Collector (Vigilance) Sri Ganganagar. 4. Before adverting to examine the legality of the impugned order, I have carefully examined the alleged Patta issued in favour of petitioners husband Gurmukh Singh. From a bare perusal of Patta Annex.2, it is amply clear that the said Patta has been issued to petitioners husband free of charge under the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (General) Special Allotment of Abadi Land for Residential House Sites to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Landless persons, village Artisans and Small and Marginal Farmers Rules 1975 (for short, Rules of 1975), which were framed in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section ( 1) of Section 89 of Panchayat Act 1953 (since repealed). As per Rule 3 of the Rules of 1975, only six categories are eligible for allotment free of charge with a rider that such allotment can be made to a bonafide resident of Rajasthan, who does not own any house site in any Abadi or agricultural land anywhere in Rajasthan in his own name or in the name of any member of his family. The complete text of Rule 3 is reproduced as under: 3. Eligibility for allotment.- The following categories shall be eligible for allotment free of charge:- (a) Scheduled Castes, (b) Scheduled Tribes, (c) Landless person, (d) Village Artisans, (e) Small farmers, (f) Marginal farmers, Provided that such a person seeking allotment should be a bonafide resident of Rajasthan and who does not own any House site in any Abadi or Agricultural land anywhere in Rajasthan in his own name or in the name of any member of his family. 5. Under Rule 5 of the Rules of 1975, an applicant seeking allotment under the Rules of 1975 is required to submit a declaration that he has no house or house site anywhere in Rajasthan in his name or in the name of any member of his family. Rule 6 of the Rules of 1975 envisages conditions of allotment. Under clause (a) of Rule 6 of the Rules of 1975 it is prescribed with clarity and precision that a plot of 150 sq.yds will be allotted free of charge. 6. Upon examining the alleged allotment of plot and issuance of Patta to the petitioners husband on the touchstone of the Rules of 1975, it is crystal clear that said allotment is dehors the Rules of 1975. There is apparently no material on record to show that petitioners husband was eligible within the four corners of Rule 3 of the Rules of 1975 for such allotment. Admittedly, the petitioner's husband does not belong to privileged class of society nor he satisfies the other eligibility conditions for allotment, therefore, on the face of it the alleged allotment is under serious cloud. Even otherwise, in terms of Rule 6 of the Rules of 1975, a plot of 150 sq.yds can be allotted free of charge to an incumbent who is eligible for such allotment. Looking to the size of the plot, such allotment is not permissible within the four corners of Rules of 1975. Even otherwise, in terms of Rule 6 of the Rules of 1975, a plot of 150 sq.yds can be allotted free of charge to an incumbent who is eligible for such allotment. Looking to the size of the plot, such allotment is not permissible within the four corners of Rules of 1975. So far as the 4th respondent is concerned, he belongs to privileged class of the society, as such, he is eligible for allotment under Rule 3 of the Rules of 1975. Thus, in totality of circumstances, when the petitioner has not been able to produce allotment order and Patta issued in favour of her husband before the learned Addl. District Collector (Vigilance), Sri Ganganagar, and no record was available before that authority. I find no illegality in the impugned order. That apart there is apparent legal infirmity in the alleged allotment of plot in favour of petitioner's husband under the Rules of 1975, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Addl. District Collector (Vigilance), Sri Ganganagar. 7. Resultantly, I find no merit in this writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed summarily.Petition Dismissed. *******