JUDGMENT : Mr. Arun Bhansali, J. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the order dated 02.03.2015 (Annex.-6), whereby land admeasuring 0.54 hectares situated at Bhinmal has been allotted free of cost to the Department of Art, History and Archaeology for construction of Panorama of Mahakavi Magh and Mathematician Brahmgupta. 2. The petitioner, a registered Trust under the provisions of Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959, has filed the present writ petition challenging the allotment made by the State under provisions of the Conditions for (Allotment of Unoccupied Government Agricultural Lands for the Construction of Schools, Colleges, Dispensaries, Dharmshalas and Other Buildings of Public Utility), 1963 ('Conditions for Allotment'). It is, inter alia, claimed that there is a temple of Shri Kshemankari Mateshwari Trust, Bhinmal, which is an ancient temple; the Trust was formed in the year 1988 for maintaining and developing the temple; the Trust undertook the task of developing the temple and the surrendering area and has planted more than five lac trees and for the said purpose, land surrendering the temple has also been used. It is claimed that for cherishing the memory of Mahakavi Magh and Mathematician Brahmgupta, a Traffic Island and Community Utility Centre respectively have been constructed. The Chief Executive Officer, Rajasthan Dharohar Sanrakshan Evam Pronnati Pradhikaran, Jaipur applied for allotment of land in Khasra No. 2733 of Village – Bhinmal for construction of a Panorama under the Conditions for Allotment regarding which the Municipal Board gave its no objection and after obtaining the Site Report, the SDO, Bhinmal forwarded the proposal to the District Collector, who by the order impugned made the allotment in question. 3. It is submitted that the allotment is illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable and unconstitutional, the Conditions for Allotment does not envisage allotment for construction of Panorama; monuments like Traffic Island and Community Utility Centre already exists for cherishing the memory of Mahakavi Magh and Mathematician Brahmgupta and, there is no necessity to create more such monuments; the land, which has been used by the Trust for planting trees should not be allotted to anyone and that the allotment will cause irreparable injury to the public at large. It was prayed that the writ petition be allowed and the allotment be quashed. 4. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material available on record. 5. It was prayed that the writ petition be allowed and the allotment be quashed. 4. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material available on record. 5. Admittedly, the land in question is an unoccupied Government land and under Clause - 1 of the Conditions for Allotment, the same may be allotted for any of the purposes mentioned in Clause - 2. 6. Clause - 2 of the Conditions for Allotment envisage, inter alia, allotment for public utility and it cannot be said that allotment of land for construction of Panorama of Mahakavi Magh and Mathematician Brahmgupta would not be for public utility. 7. The plea sought to be raised by the petitioner regarding adequacy of monuments in memory of the great personalities, appears to be preposterous as it cannot be said that merely by constructing a Traffic Island and a Community Utility Centre would suffice for cherishing the memory of the said personalities and the petitioner cannot take it open itself to determine the level at which the monuments should come up in memory of the said personalities. 8. Though, the petitioner has, as claimed, done work of public utility by planting large number of trees, which it appears has been done mostly on unoccupied Government land, the plea raised that the entire area, on which, the petitioner has planted trees, should not be allotted to anyone, essentially seeks to create ownership in the petitioner Trust of Government land, which plea cannot be accepted. 9. Further, a bare look at the Site Report (Annex.-4) would indicate that the proposed land merely admeasures 60 Mtrs. X 90 Mtrs. and on the southern and western side of the proposed land, there is a boundary wall of the Trust, wherein the plantation has been done by them. For a small portion of the land admeasuring 60 Mtrs. X 90 Mtrs., the petitioner does not appear to be justified in questioning the allotment of a Government land merely on account of certain trees planted by it are standing on the said land. 10. In view of the discussion, there is no substance in the writ petition, the same is, therefore, dismissed.