JUDGMENT : 1. The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 19.09.2002 passed by the Collector, Nagpur, allotting 5.12 hectare of land out of Survey Nos. 23-A, 23-B and 36/10 situated at Kamptee (hereinafter referred to as the "land in question") for the purposes of construction of houses for the Bidi workers belonging to economically backward classes. The order has been issued pursuant to the allotment made by the State Government as per its memorandum dated 14.07.2000. 2. The petitioner is the Society and running Technical Institution and was allotted 40,000 sq.mtrs of land, out of Survey No. 36/10, situated at Kamptee. This allotment of the petitioner was under Rules 5 and 6 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue (Disposal of Government Lands) Rules, 1971 (in short "the said Rules), for educational purposes. The land admeasuring 37,500 sq. mtrs., was allotted for educational purpose, where as 2,500 sq.mtrs of land was allotted for the purpose of play ground. The petitioner society claims to have applied for allotment of land in question which is adjacent to its land. The reliance is placed upon the document at page 41, dated 23.12.1998 by which the Naib Tahsildar called for certain information from the petitioner in respect of land Survey No. 36/10 and Khasra Nos. 23-A and 23-B, situated at Kamptee. The reliance is also placed upon the document dated 25.02.2004 to claim that the land in respect of which the proposal for allotment was submitted is in possession of the petitioner by way of encroachment since the year 1992. 3. It is urged by Shri Khapre, the learned counsel for the petitioner that without considering such proposal of the petitioner, the allotment of the land is made in favour of the respondent No. 5 – Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority i.e. MHADA on 14.07.2000 by the State Government. The reliance is placed upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Amin Mohammad Saha Mohammad Siddiqui vrs. State of Maharashtra and ors, reported at 2004 (3) Bombay C.R. 339. It is also claimed that respondent No.5 – MHADA has failed to comply with the terms of grant by carrying out and completing the construction within the stipulated period. Hence, the allotment stands cancelled. State of Maharashtra and ors, reported at 2004 (3) Bombay C.R. 339. It is also claimed that respondent No.5 – MHADA has failed to comply with the terms of grant by carrying out and completing the construction within the stipulated period. Hence, the allotment stands cancelled. It is also urged that looking to the need of the petitioner and the location of the land in question, the State Government should have granted allotment to the petitioner either under Rules 5 and 6 or under Rule 43 of the said Rules. 4. Shri Sunil Manohar, the learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri Gaikwad, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 5 – MHADA, invites our attention to the reply, in which it is stated that the application was made by respondent No. 5 – MHADA for allotment of land in question on 03.03.1999 and in view of the fact that the said land is required by the respondent No.5 for construction of houses for bidi workers under the Special Programme of the Central Government i.e. the National Housing Programme which is funded by the Central Government, the Collector, so also the respondent No.1 were well within their right to allot the said land to respondent No. 5 in preference to all other claims of private institutions. He submits that the requirement of Rules 5 and 6 of the said Rules, 1971, is to submit an application to the Collector for allotment of free of occupancy price and free of revenue land, whether in perpetuity or for a term, for the purpose of education which is specified in column 1 of the table below there in. 5. The learned AGP invites our attention to the reply filed by the respondent No. 3 – Collector, wherein it is stated that the Town Planning Department is not the authority to sanction the land to the petitioner. It is further stated that Naib Tahsildar has imposed the fine of Rs.5,000/- for illegal use of land by the petitioner as past occupancy charges. The reply further states that the possession of area of 34,600 sq.mtrs (land in question) is already handed over the the Deputy Engineer, MHADA on 23.10.2000 pursuant to the memorandum issued by the State Government on 14.07.2000 and the order of the Collector passed on 19.09.2000. 6. The reply further states that the possession of area of 34,600 sq.mtrs (land in question) is already handed over the the Deputy Engineer, MHADA on 23.10.2000 pursuant to the memorandum issued by the State Government on 14.07.2000 and the order of the Collector passed on 19.09.2000. 6. Perusal of Rule 6 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue (Disposal of Government Lands) Rules, 1971, reveals that it relates to the power of the Collector to make revenue free grants and for that purpose application is required to be made to the Collector. Shri Khapre, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner could not point out any such application addressed to the Collector for allotment of land for educational purpose as required by Rules 5 and 6 of the said Rules. In the absence of rival claim for the land in question, in terms of Rules 5 and 6 of the said Rules, the applicability of the decision cited is excluded. 7. Rule 43 of the said Rules deal with the grant of land encroached upon. According to Shri Khapre, the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Government has imposed fine of Rs.5,000/- for unauthorized use and occupation of the land in question and therefore, as an encroacher, the petitioner should have been preferred for allotment. However, it is not the case that any application was submitted as required by Rule 43 of the said Rules for allotment of land as an encroacher. The imposition of fine of Rs.5,000/- appears to be after the date of allotment of land to the respondent No. 5 on 19.09.2000. Apart from this, there being dispute on the question as to whether the petitioner has encroached upon or was in possession of the land in question, it is not possible for us to adjudicate such a dispute in exercise of writ 8. The allotment of land to the respondent No. 5 appears to be in exercise of powers conferred under Rule 27 of the Disposal of Government Land Rules. The allotment of land to the respondent No. 5 appears to be in exercise of powers conferred under Rule 27 of the Disposal of Government Land Rules. The said Rule states that the building plots may be granted by the State Government for various housing schemes undertaken by any Housing Board, Local Authority or Cooperative Housing Society constituted under any law for the time being in force, in occupancy rights under section 40 on inalienable and impartible tenure on the payment of such concessional occupancy price as the State Government may, from time to time fix, regard being had to the nature of the scheme, and in the case of Cooperative Housing Society, to the income of the members thereof, such income being ascertained after making such inquiries as the State Government may think fit to make in this behalf. 9. There is no reason to doubt that before allotment of land to the respondent No.5 on 14.07.2000, such an enquiry must have been made and there is also no challenge to the allotment on any such ground. The allotment to the respondent No. 5 is for construction of houses for bidi workers under the Special Programme of the Central Government i.e. National Housing Programme which is funded by the Central Government. The respondent No. 5 is the Housing board and is also a local authority as defined in Section 4 of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act. The claim of the respondent No.5 – MHADA is, therefore, clearly covered by the provisions of Rule 27 of the said Rules. 10. The contention of Shri Khapre, the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, though, while the allotment was claimed for construction of houses for bidi workers, there is not even a single bid worker who has been accommodated in the scheme. It is also urged that there is a violation of the terms and conditions of the grant to the respondent No.5 by the State Government. It is not possible to us to entertain such a plea for the reason that it is for the State Government to look into such matters and the petitioner cannot claim allotment in its favour on the basis of such plea. 11. In our view, the petitioner has no right to claim allotment of land in terms of Rule 6 of the said Rules. 11. In our view, the petitioner has no right to claim allotment of land in terms of Rule 6 of the said Rules. It is not the application under Rule 43 of the said Rules as an encroacher. We may not enter into the question of propriety and justification either in refusing to allot the land to the petitioner or allotment of land in favour of respondent No.5. It is the matter well within the province of the Collector and the State Government in accordance with the provisions of the Land Disposal Rules. In view of above, we do not find any substance in this petition. The same is dismissed. No order as to costs.