ORDER : Arun Bhansali, J. 1. This writ petition is directed against the judgment dated 27/9/2016 passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer, whereby, the second appeal filed by the respondent nos.5/5 to 5/10 was accepted and orders dated 24/2/2016 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority and 11/10/2015 passed by the District Collector, Barmer were set aside and the matter was remanded back to the District Collector to comparatively examine the circumstances and take a fresh decision regarding allotment. 2. The Gram Panchayat, Motisara, Panchayat Samiti Sindhari District Barmer by its resolution dated 20/2/2015 resolved to get allotted 5 Bigha land in khasra no. 239 ad measuring 20 bigha non-cultivable land. The Tehsildar by his letter dated 25/3/2015 approved the said request for allotment and the site inspection report was submitted to the SDO indicating that the land in question was lying vacant and there was no litigation pending and there is no dispute. By order dated 11/10/2015 (Annex.8), the District Collector under the provisions of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Unoccupied Government Agriculture Land for the construction of Schools, Colleges, Dispensaries, Dharamshala & other Buildings of Public Utility) Rules, 1963 ('the Rules, 1963'), allotted 2 Bigha 10 Biswa of land free of cost. Based on the said allotment, the land was mutated by indicating the land ad measuring 2 Bigha 10 Biswa as khasra no.239/1 and based on another allotment dated 8/3/2016 10 Bigha land was recorded as play ground in khasra no. 239/2. The possession of the land was handed over to the Gram Panchayat and Patwari indicated the same vide his communication sent to the Tehsildar on 4/11/2015. It is claimed that in the meanwhile, the local MLA objected to the allotment and required that the land in khasra no. 217 be allotted, on which the SDO sent a communication to the District Collector after inspecting the land and indicated that land in question was 2 kms. off the village 'Talia', whereas, khasra no. 217 was situated in village 'Talia' only. It was also indicated that Prabhu Ram, who lost the election, wanted the Panchayat Head Quarter to be constructed in khasra no. 217 and 251 and gave a comparative statement regarding the lands i.e. allotted land situated in khasra no. 239 and proposed land in khasra no. 217. 3. 217 was situated in village 'Talia' only. It was also indicated that Prabhu Ram, who lost the election, wanted the Panchayat Head Quarter to be constructed in khasra no. 217 and 251 and gave a comparative statement regarding the lands i.e. allotted land situated in khasra no. 239 and proposed land in khasra no. 217. 3. In the meanwhile, an appeal under Section 75 of the Land Revenue Act, 1956 ('the Act, 1956) came to be preferred before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Barmer in the name of General Public, Motisara. The Revenue Appellate Authority by its order dated 24/2/2016 came to the conclusion that the allotment was made after inquiry in which the appellants have failed to indicate any illegality and, therefore, the order of allotment based on administrative discretion does not require any interference and dismissed the appeal. 4. Feeling aggrieved, second appeal was filed before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue by its judgment dated 27/9/2016, as already noticed hereinbefore, after noticing the two reports, one dated 27/8/2015 and another dated 16/10/2015, came to the conclusion that once the factual report had come on record, the local MLA and the villagers had raised objection on which another report had come, therefore, the matter should be remanded back to the District Collector and consequently passed the order impugned. 5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the Gram Panchayat that the order passed by the Board of Revenue is ex facie beyond jurisdiction and contrary to the material available on record and, therefore, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. It was submitted that the allotment was made in terms of the provisions of the Rules and no violation of the Rules have been either alleged or established and, therefore, the Board of Revenue, merely on account of the fact that based on frivolous complaint made qua the allotment, certain reports were prepared and same came on record, could not have set aside the order passed by the District Collector as upheld by the Revenue Appellate Authority. Further submissions were made that entire dispute sought to be raised is factually baseless inasmuch as the respondents with the aid of the claim that a pond exists in khasra no. Further submissions were made that entire dispute sought to be raised is factually baseless inasmuch as the respondents with the aid of the claim that a pond exists in khasra no. 239, were claiming that irrespective of the land records whether the land in question is recorded as non-cultivable and does not indicate existence of any pond, were seeking to get the allotment set aside. It was also submitted that from the material which has come on record in terms of directions issued by this Court, it is apparent that the so called pond and its catchment is only in a part of said khasra no.239 and is not situated in the entire khasra no. 239, which is a large khasra ad measurig 20 Bigha 10 Biswa and out of the said 20 Bigha 10 Biswa land, only 2 Bigha 10 Biswa at the extreme north has been allotted for the construction of Panchayat Head Quarter and in fact in between the allotted land and the pond, land for play ground of a school has been allotted, qua which allotment no objection has been raised by the respondents, which shows their malafides. It was vehemently submitted that entire dispute was sought to be raised at the instance of a candidate, who lost in election and despite having lost the election, with the aid of local MLA, was seeking either to obstruct the developmental work and/or take the same to the location of his desire. It is submitted that the elected representatives i.e. Gram Panchayat have passed a resolution and sought allotment in khasra no. 239 keeping in view the benefits accruing to all concerned and, therefore, the Board of Revenue was not justified in setting aside the said allotment. 6. Further submissions were made that action of the Board of Revenue in setting aside the allotment order, despite coming to the conclusion that Revenue Appellate Authority did not consider the particular material available on record, is wholly contrary to the settled procedure, as there was no occasion for setting aside the allotment already made based on the non-consideration of some material by the Revenue Appellate Authority and on that count also the order impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside. 7. Reliance was placed on Mool Chand and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. : 1995 (1) WLC 430. 8. 7. Reliance was placed on Mool Chand and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. : 1995 (1) WLC 430. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the State essentially supported the order passed by the Collector without taking any particular stand and has filed material on record indicating that the land in khasra no. 239 was recorded as 'Gair Mumkin Dhora' and has produced 'Misal Bandobast' pertaining to Samvat Year 2012 to 2031. During the pendency of the writ petition, an additional affidavit has been filed by the Tehsildar, Sindhari along with 'Mauka Fard' including the map of the land comprised in khasra no. 239. 9. A response has also been filed by the respondent nos. 5/5 to 5/10, who were appellants before the Revenue Appellate Authority and the Board of Revenue, vehemently contesting the case of the petitioner and the submissions made. It was inter alia submitted by counsel for the said respondents that the order passed by the Board of Revenue does not call for any interference. It was submitted that the land comprised in khasra no. 239 is having a pond and its catchment and the entire land is being utilized for grazing the livestock and, therefore, the District Collector was not justified in allotting the land in question for construction of Panchayat Head Quarter. It was submitted that merely because in the revenue record the land has been shown as 'Barani Soyam', though factually a 'Nadi' and its catchment exist, cannot authorize the District Collector to allot the land under the Rules by ignoring the presence of 'Nadi' at the site. With reference to the various reports available on record, it was submitted that existence of 'Nadi' is established from the reports, which have come on record and, therefore, on that count the allotment made was rightly set aside by the Board of Revenue and in any case the matter has been remanded back to the District Collector, who after examining the entire issue all over again based on the material available on record would be free to pass fresh order and in fact can again come to a conclusion that Panchayat Head Quarter be constructed in khasra no. 239 only and, therefore, against the remand order, the petitioner is not justified in raising any grievance and the writ petition in this regard deserves to be dismissed. 10. 239 only and, therefore, against the remand order, the petitioner is not justified in raising any grievance and the writ petition in this regard deserves to be dismissed. 10. Reliance was placed on a Division Bench judgment in the case of Gulab Kothari v. State of Rajasthan : 2017 (1) WLN 417 (Raj.) in support of the contentions. 11. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. Admittedly, the allotment of the land in question is governed by the Condition for (Allotment of Unoccupied Govt. Agricultural Lands for the Construction of Schools, Colleges, Dispensaries, Dharamshalas & other Buildings of Public Utility), 1963 ('the Conditions, 1963') and only restriction and class of land to be allotted has been indicated in Clause 1. The Clause 1 provides for conditions to be fulfilled before the land recorded as pasture, or recorded as public path, pasture oran, Johad Paithan and bed of River or tank, Gair Mumkin Pahad can be allotted and allotment in cities and towns for which Master Plan has been approved. Further the Clause also deals with the conditions for allotment of irrigated land and even land of Johad Paithan. Other than the said exceptional categories any unoccupied Govt. land can be allotted for the purpose under the Rules. 12. There is no dispute insofar as the nature of land indicated in the revenue record qua khasra no. 239 is concerned, the same is 'Barani Soyam' and even in 'Misal Bandobast' pertaining to Samvat Year 2012 the same was recorded as 'Dhora' and, therefore, apparently, as per the conditions indicated in the Rules, the land was available for allotment. 13. So far as the plea raised about existence of 'Nadi' and its catchment, which appears to have come up subsequent to the settlement of said khasra no. 239, is concerned, it would be appropriate to refer to the report filed by the respondent nos. 5/5 to 5/10 along with their reply as Annex.R/1, which is dated 27/8/2015, and has been heavily relied on by the counsel for the respondent nos. 5/5 to 5/10 and has formed the basis for the Board of Revenue to set side the order of allotment and the appellate order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority. 5/5 to 5/10 along with their reply as Annex.R/1, which is dated 27/8/2015, and has been heavily relied on by the counsel for the respondent nos. 5/5 to 5/10 and has formed the basis for the Board of Revenue to set side the order of allotment and the appellate order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority. The relevant part of the said report reads as under:- ^^ekSds ij bl Hkwfe [kljk ua0 239 jdck 20&10 fc?kk fdLe ck0 lks;e xzke eksrhljk esa cksjkbZ ukMh fLFkr gSA bl Hkwfe esa yxHkx vk/kh Hkwfe esa ukMh o ukMh dk vkxksj gSA ftlls ukMh esa ikuh vkrk gSA 'ks"k Hkwfe i'kqvksa ds pjus ds dke vk jgh gSA ;g Hkwfe [kljk ua0 239 jdck 20&10 fc?kk fdLe ck0lks0 ljdkjh [kkrs esa ntZ gSA jktLo jsdkMZ esa bl Hkwfe esa ukMh o ckxksj ntZ ugha gSA tcfd ekSds ij bl Hkwfe esa cksjkbZ ukMh fLFkr o ukMh dk vkxksj Hkh gS] ftlls ukMh esa ikuh vkrk gSA ftls xzkeh.k is;ty ds :i esa o i'kqvksa ds fiykus ds dke esa ysrs gSA** (emphasis supplied) 14. A look at the said report indicates that the area of khasra no. 239 has been indicated as 20 Bigha 10 Biswa and it is specifically indicated that about half of it comprise of 'Nadi' and its catchment and it is also indicated that in the revenue record 'Nadi' and its catchment has not been recorded. The said aspect is fortified from the site report dated 21/2/2017 given by the Tehsildar filed along with the additional affidavit of the said Tehsildar, apparently under the directions of this Court, wherein, he has given out the map of khasra no. 239 and has indicated that the 'Nadi' and its catchment, which is khasra no. 239/3, was on the southern side of the khasra, where after, on the north side khasra no. 239/2, land for play ground has been allotted and where after, there exists the Govt. land and in the last, khasra no. 239/1 was the land allotted for construction of Panchayat Head Quarter. It is further indicated in the report that the 'Nadi' was got dug up as part of the famine relief projects, wherein, there was no water and the allotted land is 530 ft. away from the 'Nadi'. The land of khasra no. 239/3 was indicated as 5 Bigha, play ground was indicated as 10 Bigha. It is further indicated in the report that the 'Nadi' was got dug up as part of the famine relief projects, wherein, there was no water and the allotted land is 530 ft. away from the 'Nadi'. The land of khasra no. 239/3 was indicated as 5 Bigha, play ground was indicated as 10 Bigha. From the report relied on by respondent nos. 5/5 to 5/10 and the report given by the Tehsildar as part of his additional affidavit in the present writ petition, it is apparent that the said 'Nadi' and its catchment is only in part of khasra no. 239. The said aspect is fortified from the comparative statement produced by the petitioner, which formed part of report dated 19/10/2015 given by the SDO to the District Collector, wherein also the area of 'Nadi' was indicated as about 10 Bigha i.e. about half of the said khasra came to be dug up as 'Nadi' and worked as its catchment. 15. In that view of the matter, rest of the land, which was part of the play ground, Govt. land and land allotted to the Gram Panchayat continued to be 'Barani Soyam' and was, therefore, available for allotment under the provisions of the Act. The comparative statement produced along with the report dated 19/10/2015 (Annex.11) also takes into consideration the other aspects about population and distance of other villages from the proposed Panchayat Head Quarter. 16. Once the concerned authority i.e. Gram Panchayat, elected representatives of people, in their wisdom took a decision to construct the Panchayat Head Quarter at a particular location, which decision is not arbitrary and in violation of any provisions of law, the same cannot be interfered with merely on the appellate authority coming to a conclusion that other location was also required to be considered and/or based on the material produced by persons questioning the said allotment that some other land may be comparatively better placed for such allotment. 17. The Division Bench of this Court in Mala Ram & ors. 17. The Division Bench of this Court in Mala Ram & ors. v. State of Rajasthan : D.B. Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No.7482/2014 decided on 30/10/2014 inter alia observed 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/-. 18. The said judgment was followed in the case of Jagmal Ram v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : D.B.Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No.11978/2015 decided on 28/10/2015, wherein, also a challenge to the allotment was negated. 19. 18. The said judgment was followed in the case of Jagmal Ram v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : D.B.Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No.11978/2015 decided on 28/10/2015, wherein, also a challenge to the allotment was negated. 19. Further, there is substance in the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner that the procedure adopted by the Board of Revenue in setting aside the order passed by the District Collector based on its reaching the conclusion that the Revenue Appellate Authority did not consider the material available on record, the normal course open for the Board of Revenue was to remand back the matter to the Revenue Appellate Authority and there was no occasion for the Board of Revenue to set aside the order passed by the Collector without pointing out any deficiency in the said order and only because the Board of Revenue was of the opinion that decision of the District Collector requires a re-look, which, as already determined by this Court hereinbefore, cannot be a reason to set side the allotment made under the Conditions for Allotment, 1963, cannot be sustained. 20. In view of the above discussion, the order passed by the Board of Revenue cannot be sustained and the same is, therefore, set aside. Further, on merits also it has been found that the order passed by the District Collector as upheld by the Revenue Appellate Authority did not require any interference even on merits, the appeal filed by the respondent nos. 5/5 to 5/10 is, therefore, dismissed. The writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. No order as to costs.