JUDGMENT 1. - The petition portrays a sordid tale of widow of an Ex-Serviceman who is languishing for justice since 2004. 2. Facts apposite giving rise to this writ petition are detailed as under: Husband of the petitioner Shri Raghunath Singh, after retirement from Indian Army applied for allotment of agricultural land under Rule 12-A of the Rajasthan Colonisation (Allotment and Sale of Government Land in Rajasthan Canal Colony Area) Rules, 1975 (for short, 'Rules of 1975') in the year 1985. Under Rule 12A of the Rules of 1975, there is a provision for allotment of land to Ex-Servicemen out of the land reserved for the purpose under Rule 6 of the Rules of 1975. Complete text of Rule 12-A reads as under: 12-A. Allotment of land to Ex- Servicemen.- Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, allotment of land to Ex-Servicemen shall be made in the following manner:- (i) Allotment of Government land to Ex- Servicemen shall be made out of the land reserved for the purpose under rule 6 of these rules. (ii) The Colonisation Commissioner keeping in view of the availability of land may from time to time decide to invite applications from the Ex-Servicemen according to the priorities as laid down under rule 7 for the landless persons through the Collector of the district. (iii) The public notice for such applicant shall be issued under the signature of the Colonisation Commissioner or any other officer authorised by him inviting applications for allotment within the time fixed therein, which shall not be less than 30 days from the date of such notice, or within such time as may be extended from time to time. (iv) Copies of such notice shall be affixed at the following places for wide publicity namely:- (a) Notice Board of the Colonisation Commissioner, (b) Notice Board of the Collector of the District, (c) Notice Board of the Secretary Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen's Board of the district. (v) An Ex-Servicemen desiring allotment of land shall submit his application for allotment in triplicate in form XIV to the Collector of the district aiongwith an affidavit that he is an Ex-Sen/iceman under these rules, who shall immediately register it in a register maintained by him in form XV and issue to applicant receipt in form XVI. (v) An Ex-Servicemen desiring allotment of land shall submit his application for allotment in triplicate in form XIV to the Collector of the district aiongwith an affidavit that he is an Ex-Sen/iceman under these rules, who shall immediately register it in a register maintained by him in form XV and issue to applicant receipt in form XVI. The application so submitted shall be verified by the applicant as plaint according to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Central Act V of 1908) and the affidavit, containing true and correct factual information as required in the application shall be verified by a magistrate or an Oath Commissioner. (vi) The Collector of the district shall scrutinise the application and the o affidavit annexed thereto and shall conduct or get conducted such enquiry as he may consider necessary for finding the true state of facts mentioned in the application. Thereafter, he shall prepare his report in form XVII. (vii) The Collector of the District shall sent two copies of the application 45 aiongwith report in form XVII to the Colonisation Commissioner who shall keep one copy of the application in his office and forward the other copy with report in form XVII to the concerned Allotting Authority for allotment of land. The allotting Authority shall register such application in the register to be maintained by him in form XV. The Allotting Authority after so satisfying himself about the eligibility of the applicant shall allot each applicant Government land to the extent provided in sub-rule (2) of rule 5 out of the area reserved for such applicant on the. terms and conditions as laid down in these rules. (vii-A) When there are more than one applicant, allotment shall be made by drawal of lots in the following manner:- (a) the Colonisation Commissioner shall prepare a list of persons whose applications have been received within time and who fulfil the eligibility condition for allotment of land under these rules: (b) the number of persons to whom land may be allotted will be determined by the Allotting Authority on the basis of total area of land available for allotment divided by 25. (c) lots will be drawn by the Allotting Authority from amongst applicants found eligible under clause (a) above, to select the persons eligible for allotment of land equal to the number determined under clause (b) above. (c) lots will be drawn by the Allotting Authority from amongst applicants found eligible under clause (a) above, to select the persons eligible for allotment of land equal to the number determined under clause (b) above. In the same draw of lots, additional persons equal to 25% of the number of persons determined under clause (b) above, shall be selected and arranged in the order, in accordance with the result of the drawal of lots and be kept on the waiting list. The waiting list shall remain valid till the land available for allotment is exhausted; (d) in case the land available for allotment exceeds the requirement of the land to be allotted to persons declared successful on the basis of the draw of lots, persons from the waiting list in their respective order may be considered for allotment of land; (e) the applicants declared successful and entitled to allotment of land under clauses (c) and (d) above, will be arranged in homogeneous groups on the basis of tehsil, districts and regions to which they belong; (f) compact area of land, out of total area available for allotment, commensurate with the requirement of each group formed under clause (c) shall be set apart for each such group and the allotment of land to each person belonging to the same group shall be made in the area thus set apart on the basis of separate draw of lots held amongst person belonging to such group. (vii-B) All allotments of Government land under this rule shall be made by the Allotting Authority in consultation with the Advisory Committee consisting of the following members, namely:- (a) Member of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly in whose Constituency the land proposed to be allotted is situated. (b) Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat in whose jurisdiction such land is situated (c) Secretary of Zila Sainik Board concerned. (d) A representative of the Director- General of Re-settlement, as 40 nominated by him, and (e) Colonisation Tehsildar of the Tehsil in which the land is situated. (f) Sub-Divisional Officer of the concerned sub-division as a representative of District Collector. The provision of rule 13 will apply mutatis mutandis, to this advisory 45 committee to the extent they are not provided in this rule. (f) Sub-Divisional Officer of the concerned sub-division as a representative of District Collector. The provision of rule 13 will apply mutatis mutandis, to this advisory 45 committee to the extent they are not provided in this rule. (viii) Separate lists of persons whose applications have been granted or rejected shall be affixed forthwith on the Notice Board of the Colony Tehsil or Revenue Tehsil in whose jurisdiction the land is situated. Such publication shall be deemed to be sufficient notice to the applicants of so the orders passed on the applications. (ix) The Allotting Authority shall issue allotment order in form XII a copy of which shall be sent to the allottee, Colonisation Tehsildar, Collector of the district and the Colonisation Commissioner. (x) The Ex-Serviceman, who has been allotted land under rules, shall take possession of the land within one month from the date of receipt of allotment order in form XII. In case of his failure to take possession of the land with the said period the allottee shall be deemed to have declined the allotment and the land shall thereafter, be available for re-allotment to any other Ex-Serviceman under these rules. (xi) The Colonisation Tehsildar shall handover possession of the allotted land to the allottee and issue a certificate to that effect to the allottee. A copy of the certificate shall also be forwarded to the Allotting Authority Collector of the district and the Colonisation Commissioner. 3. The application submitted by petitioner's husband remained pending with the allotting authority for almost three decades and finally the land measuring 23.08 bigha (command) at Tehsil Mohangarh-1 Chak 2 ULM in Murabba No. 138/53 and 0.17 uncommand land, total measuring 24.05 bigha was proposed to be allotted to Shri Raghunath Singh vide letter/notice dated 28th of December 2004 asking him to deposit a sum of Rs. 10,720 being 5% of the value of the land aiongwith relevant documents within stipulated time i.e. up to 31st January 2005. By the time proposed allotment was made, petitioner's husband took his last breath on 19th March 2004 i.e. approximately nine months anterior to the aforesaid proposed allotment order. Be that as it may, on receipt of the order, the petitioner visited the office of second respondent to deposit the first instalment of Rs. 10,720 along with requisite documents for facilitating allotment of land in her favour and consequential actions. Be that as it may, on receipt of the order, the petitioner visited the office of second respondent to deposit the first instalment of Rs. 10,720 along with requisite documents for facilitating allotment of land in her favour and consequential actions. However, as per the version of the petitioner, respondent refused to accept the amount from petitioner and asked her to submit some more documents which were not mentioned in the notice/letter dated 28th of December 2004. 4. While asking the petitioner to submit additional documents, an assurance was given to her that requisite allotment order shall be issued on receipt of additional documents. Thereupon, according to petitioner, the requisite documents were submitted, viz., Death Certificate of her Late husband Raghunath Singh and Succession Certificate but to her dismay even after receipt of these documents the respondent did not show any favourable gesture. It so happened that by the end of December 2005 the respondents made endeavor to solicit certain information about the petitioner from Sainik Kalyan Board, Chirawa, which was necessary for making allotment in her favour. On coming to know the efforts made by the respondents, the petitioner immediately paid a personal visit to the office of Sainik Kalyan Board at Chirawa and answered all the required queries of the officials of the Government, however, nothing turned out thereafter. 5. For substantiating her claim, the petitioner has also placed on record letter dated 15th May 2006, addressed to the second respondent by the Director, Sainik Kalyan Department, Jaipur to take necessary action regarding the allotment procedure sympathetically in favour of the petitioner. The Department sent the aforesaid communication to the second respondent while acknowledging the recommendation letter of Chairman, Sainik Kalyan Board, Jaipur espousing cause of the petitioner. Expressing her pains for not taking affirmative action in the matter, the petitioner has pleaded that even the letter dated 15th May 2006 was not paid any heed by the second respondent. The petitioner has categorically averred in the writ petition that she made sincere endeavor for allotment of proposed land to her but nothing was done by the respondents in utter disregard of all cannons of fair play, equity and justice. Specifically pleading in the writ petition that nonallotment of land is causing undue hardship to her and grave injustice, the petitioner has also submitted that she made several representations but all her efforts were in vain. Specifically pleading in the writ petition that nonallotment of land is causing undue hardship to her and grave injustice, the petitioner has also submitted that she made several representations but all her efforts were in vain. Finally, the petitioner served a notice for demand of justice on 17th of August 2009 and thereafter approached this Court seeking redressal of her grievances. 6. The writ petition is contested by the respondents. In the reply, the respondents have pleaded that the applications for allotment to eligible Ex-Sen/icemen were invited from 01.06.1983 to 31.07.1983 through concerned District Collectors and on receipt of total 10780 applications, 7450 were found eligible for allotment. The applications of eligible persons finalised through a lottery system and were disposed of periodically as per availability of land in the years 1985, 1986, 1994, 1995, 2004 & 2006. While referring to the application of petitioner's husband, it is submitted in the reply that the decision for allotment was taken on 19th June 2004 in the meeting of Allotment Advisory Committee and pursuant thereto the original applicant i.e. Raghunath Singh was issued a notice on 28th December 2004 to produce affidavit and complete requisite formalities for finalising the allotment in his favour. The respondents have admitted in their reply that pursuant to letter dated 28th December 2004, the petitioner appeared and disclosed the fact that her husband Raghunath Singh has died on 14th March 2004 and she is ready and willing to complete the requisite formalities. It is also acknowledged in the reply that the petitioner has produced Death Certificate of her husband. 7. The respondents in the reply repudiated the claim of the petitioner by pleading that as the original applicant i.e. the husband of the petitioner died before the decision for allotment was arrived on 19th June 2004, the said decision being in respect of a dead person became ineffective and therefore cannot be implemented favourable to her. Taking note of the fact that the original applicant, i.e., husband of the petitioner Raghunath Singh died prior to the decision of allotment, the said allotment was annulled by the competent authority on 19th of December 2007, a copy of the same was placed on record as Annex.R/3. Taking note of the fact that the original applicant, i.e., husband of the petitioner Raghunath Singh died prior to the decision of allotment, the said allotment was annulled by the competent authority on 19th of December 2007, a copy of the same was placed on record as Annex.R/3. On behalf of the respondents, document Annex.R/4 was also produced indicating a proposal to State Government for certain amendments in sub-rule (vii) of Rule 12-A of the Rules of 1975 for facilitating allotment in favour of legal heirs of the deceased Ex-Servicemen, who died during pendency of application for allotment of land. Besides that Annex.R/5 dated 6.10.2007 was also produced whereby the said proposal has not been approved by the Government. With these submissions, the respondents have sought dismissal of the writ petition. 8. The matter came up before the Court on 21st of November 2013 and the Court was pleased to pass following order: "Mr. Hemant Choudhary, learned Government Counsel seeks two weeks' time to file additional affidavit giving complete details of the consideration of the petitioner's husband application for allotment of the land as Ex-Serviceman, which was admittedly made in the year 1985. Time prayed for is allowed. Put up on 5.12.13, as rayed." 9. In response to the said order, on behalf of respondents an additional affidavit is submitted on 8th of January 2014. The facts incorporated in Para 6 of the Additional Affidavit read as under: 6. That following are the particulars of year- wise allotment of lands to the Ex Servicemen: Year Number of Ex-Servicemen to whom land was allotted 1985-86 2398 1994 201 1995 492 1998 148 2001 59 2004 2038 2006 1157 In total, 7459 Ex-Servicemen have been allotted land till date. 10. From the Additional Affidavit, it has emerged out that total 7459 Ex-Servicemen have been allotted land till date. However, there is no plausible explanation in the reply as well as in the Additional Affidavit about non-consideration of the application of petitioner's husband Raghunath Singh for almost three decades. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Avinash Acharya has vehemently argued that provision contained under Rule 12-A of the Rules of 1975 is a welfare legislation making room for allotment of land to Ex-Servicemen and therefore the said provision is to be construed liberally with pragmatic approach to farther the aims and objects of the Rules. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Avinash Acharya has vehemently argued that provision contained under Rule 12-A of the Rules of 1975 is a welfare legislation making room for allotment of land to Ex-Servicemen and therefore the said provision is to be construed liberally with pragmatic approach to farther the aims and objects of the Rules. While referring to the impugned order dated 19th December 2007 (Annex.R/3) whereby allotment made in favour of petitioner's Late husband is cancelled, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that by issuing this order the respondents have frustrated the very object of Rule 12-A of the Rules of 1975. Mr. Acharya has urged that the decision of the competent authority to cancel the allotment in favour of petitioner's husband being absolutely arbitrary, unreasonable and discriminatory in gross violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India cannot be sustained. Mr. Acharya has submitted that the application submitted by the petitioner's husband remained pending with the respondents for almost three decades and when finally it was processed and 5 culminated into allotment, the fruits flowing from the said allotment have been denied to the petitioner on a fortuitous circumstance of the death of her husband. This according to Mr. Acharya is per-se a fanciful decision of the authorities which cannot be sustained. 12. Per contra, Mr. A.R. Godara, learned counsel for the respondents, has submitted that under Rule 12-A of the Rules of 1975 only Ex-Servicemen are eligible for allotment and no allotment can be made to the legal heirs of Ex-Servicemen, therefore, there is no infirmity much less legal infirmity in the impugned order whereby allotment made to petitioner's husband has been cancelled. Emphasising the definition of 5 Ex-Serviceman, as envisaged under Section 2(1) (ix-a), Mr. Godara submits that petitioner is not entitled for allotment under Rule 12-A of the Rules of 1975 as her status is not akin to that of an Ex-Serviceman. Placing reliance of Annex.R/5, learned Government Counsel, submits that the proposal for allotment has not been approved by the Government, therefore, the order cancelling allotment made in favour of petitioner's husband suffers from no infirmity much less legal infirmity. 13. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 14. Placing reliance of Annex.R/5, learned Government Counsel, submits that the proposal for allotment has not been approved by the Government, therefore, the order cancelling allotment made in favour of petitioner's husband suffers from no infirmity much less legal infirmity. 13. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 14. Upon examining the peculiar facts of the instant case, in my considered opinion, the State Government due to its total apathy and inaction has frustrated the very object of Rule 12-A of the Rules of 1975. It is really strange that application submitted by an Ex-Serviceman in the year 1985 came up for consideration for allotment of agricultural land after almost three decades; such inordinate delay is a cause of grave and serious concern. That apart, the petitioner, who is a widow of Ex- Serviceman is sought to be deprived of her right to claim the allotted land to her husband on a fortuitous circumstance of death of her husband three months anterior to the decision for allotment of land. Inordinate delay and laches on the part of the respondents in considering the application of petitioner's husband cannot be cited as a reason for cancellation of allotment made to her husband merely on account of his death. The State Government in this behalf has proceeded with snail's pace and has not acted fairly and objectively which fortifies from the fact that even the communication from Sainik Kalyan Board containing recommendation for allotment in favour of the petitioner has not been paid any heed. The welfare State, which has promulgated the Rules of 1975 and incorporated specific rule for allotment of agricultural land to Ex- Servicemen in the form of Rule 12-A of the Rules of 1975, cannot shirk from its just obligation to allot land to kith and kin of Ex-Serviceman who has served for the Nation to defend its pride in the battle field. It is true that Rule 12-A envisages allotment of agricultural land to Ex-Servicemen but the crucial date for determining status of an individual is the day when the application is submitted and not later than that much less 30 years after the submission of the application. It is true that Rule 12-A envisages allotment of agricultural land to Ex-Servicemen but the crucial date for determining status of an individual is the day when the application is submitted and not later than that much less 30 years after the submission of the application. If such technical interpretation is given to a beneficial piece of legislation the whole provision will be rendered otiose and no Ex- Serviceman : shall be able to get the requisite allotment of land in his favour under the said Rule. Beneficent and purposeful interpretation of the Rule is required to see that things may rather avail them perish. It is well settled that in construing the provisions of Statute the Court should be slow to adopt a construction which tends to make any part of the statute meaningless or ineffective. Thus, 2 an attempt must always be made to reconcile the relevant provisions so as to advance the remedy intended by the Statute. Moreover, looking to the factual background of the case, the period of almost three decades taken by the respondents in deciding the application of the petitioner's husband cannot be utilised to their advantage to thwart a valid allotment made in his favour. Thus, 4 viewed from any angle, the impugned order cannot be sustained and the action of the respondents cannot be approved. 15. The upshot of the above discussion is that the instant writ petition is allowed, the impugned order dated 19th of December 2007 (Annex.R/3) is set aside and the respondents are directed to allot land to the petitioner as per 4 the proposal made in the notice/letter dated 28th of December 2004 and handover possession to her, subject to her completing all the requisite formalities in accordance with law. The requisite exercise in this behalf be undertaken by the respondents as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of the certified copy of 5i this order.Writ Petition allowed. *******