JUDGMENT 1. This writ petition in the nature of a public interest litigation has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of order dated 30.09.2015 (Annexure-13) passed by the District Collector, Jodhpur, whereby, land comprised in Khasra No. 2543 has been allotted for office building and residential purposes for revenue employees of Tehsil Lohawat. 2. It is, inter alia, claimed in the writ petition that as Tehsil Phalodi had a very large area, a new Tehsil Lohawat was created by bifurcating the area of Tehsil Phalodi; as there was necessity of having residences for the staff and building of the Tehsil, by resolution dated 05.03.2014 the land comprised in Khasra No. 1131 was provided by Gram Panchayat and a no objection was issued for construction of the Tehsil building; where after, the land was mutated in the name of Tehsil Office Building, Lohawat and tender of M/s. Sri Construction, Jodhpur was accepted for construction of the building. It is then claimed that after change of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Lohawat, the Gram Panchayat passed a resolution for allotment of land for Tehsil building and residential building and the Gram Panchayat also issued no objection certificate qua Khasra No. 2543 and proposed that the land be compensated from Khasra No. 1131. 3. The petitioner filed D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7871/2015, which was dismissed as premature. 4. Where after, as the allotment has been made vide Annexure-13 dated 30.09.2015, a fresh challenge has been laid; it is, inter alia, claimed that the land is five kilometers away from Abadi and the land selected earlier was abutting the Abadi land and was close to Krishi Mandi; further plea has been raised that pasture land ('Oran') is being utilised for construction of building, against the provisions of the Conditions for (Allotment of Unoccupied Government Agricultural Lands for the Construction of Schools, Colleges, Dispensaries, Dharamshalas & Others, Buildings of Public Utility), 1963 ('the Conditions for Allotment') 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the land comprised in Khasra No. 1131 was more suitable for the purpose of setting up of Tehsil Office and apparently on account of new Sarpanch taking over, the location has been changed without any cogent reason; it is further submitted that the allotment is against the provisions of conditions of the allotment as the land of Oran is being utilised for the said purpose; another submission was made that the construction of the building at Khasra No. 1131 was challenged by Mala Ram & Ors. by filing D.B. Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No. 7483/2014, which was rejected by this Court on 30.10.2014; it was prayed that the order dated 30.09.2015 passed by the Collector allotting the land deserves to be quashed and set aside. 6. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material placed on record. 7. A bare look at the allotment order dated 11.08.2014 pertaining to Khasra No. 1131 would reveal that by the said order 5 Bigha land for building of Tehsil office was allotted, whereas, vide Annexure-13 dated 30.09.2015, while 5 Bigha land has been allotted for office building of Tehsil, 5 Bigha land has been allotted for residences of the revenue employees as well; the Collector, by the order dated 30.09.2015 itself has noticed as under for the purpose of cancellation of the earlier allotment:- " mi[k.M vf/kdkjh] Qyksnh us vius i= dzekad jktLo@fofo/k@2015@186 fnukad 17-07-2015 ds }kjk rglhy yksgkoV dk;kZy; Hkou o vkokl gsrq vkoafVr Hkwfe jsYos LVs'ku ls LVsV gkbZ&os 61 tks/kiqj Qyksnh jksM ls vf/kd nwj gksus rFkk vketu dh lqfo/kk rFkk fofHkUu ljdkjh dk;kZy;ksa dks ,d gh txg LVsV gkbZ&os ij lwfpr fd;s tkus ds mn~ns'; rglhy yksgkoV dk;kZy; Hkou o vkokl gsrq Hkwfe vkoaVu dk uohu izLrko izsf"kr fd;k gS lkFk esa rglhy yksgkoV dk;kZy; Hkou o vkokl gsrq iwoZ esa vkoafVr Hkwfe ds vkns'k dks fujLr djus dk fuosnu fd;k gSA vr% bl dk;kZy; ds vkns'k dzekad i0&12@3 jkt@vkoaVu@14@2808 fnukad 11-08-2014 ,oa la'kks/ku vkns'k dzekad 2885 fnukad 13-08-2014 dks rqjUr izHkko ls fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA " 8. In view of the above, where a conscious decision has been taken by the competent authority for cancelling the earlier allotment and allotting a fresh land and further the petitioner has failed to point out any specific ground except a bald allegation that the location has been changed on account of change of Sarpanch, no interference is called for in a petition purportedly filed as a public interest litigation. 9. So far as allegation regarding violation of the Conditions for Allotment is concerned, the provisions of Clause 1(2)(ii) pertains to allotment of land of Johad/Payatan by the Divisional Commissioner in case of non-availability of other appropriate land, however, in the present case, the Collector along with allotment of land of Oran has also simultaneously converted the land of Khasra No. 1131 as Oran. 10. While under the provisions of Clause 1(2)(ii), in case of allotment by the Divisional Commissioner, there is no further requirement of ordering for conversion of other land as Oran, the present allotment cannot be termed as an allotment under the said Clause and, therefore, as the power has apparently not been exercised under Clause 1(2)(ii) of the Conditions of Allotment, there is no substance in the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 11. In the judgment cited by learned counsel for the petitioner when challenge was laid to construction of building at Khasra No. 1131, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court held as under:- "After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, we are of the opinion that 3 petitioners cannot file this writ petition under the label of public interest litigation because it is the prerogative of the District Administrative to provide facilities to the citizens and if a conscious decisions is taken by the District Collector, Jodhpur for allotment of land in Khasra No.1131 of Lohawat village for construction of Tehsil Office Building then it cannot be challenged by 2 citizens of the area on whimsical grounds. It is also required to be observed that Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat is elected person and the Panchayat institution is a statutory body and that statutory body is having jurisdiction to look into the welfare of the area concerned but here in this case this writ petition has been filed by 3 citizens while impleading the elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Lohawat as a party to challenge the order of District Collector whereby the land was allotted for construction of Tehsil Office Building. In view of the above, it emerges from the facts that there is no public interest involved in this writ petition. More so, it is a petition for personal interest of the petitioners, with intention to stay the development of the area, therefore, this writ petition is hereby dismissed with cost of Rs. 2,000/-." 12. The case of the petitioner stands on a worst footing than the case of Mala Ram (supra) as the petitioner has singularly challenged the present allotment. 13. In view of the above discussion, there is no substance in the writ petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******