ORDER : Heard learned counsel for the parties. The present writ petition has been filed with the following prayers: "(i) The letter of Tehsildar dated 26.08.2013 and all consequential proceeding thereupon may kindly be quashed and set aside. (ii) the respondents be directed to allot land to the petitioner equivalent to the original allotted land and/or to allot him land on the same lines on which other eight persons were allotted land as detailed in the writ petition in an expeditious manner. (iii) If thought fit, appropriate contempt proceedings be launched against respondent No.4 under Contempt of Court Act, 1971." 2. Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioner being a landless person and an agriculturist by profession, applied for allotment of land under the provisions of Chapter-III B of Rajasthan Tenancy Act and Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973. Pursuant thereto, vide order dated 26.05.1982 passed by the respondent No.2-District Collector, Jaisalmer, a piece of land ad-measuring 53 Bighas and 11 Biswas situated at Village Moolsagar was allotted in favour of the petitioner and 07 other persons. Thereafter, a notice dated 20.01.2005 was issued by the District Collector, Jaisalmer, calling upon the respective allottees including the petitioner for taking alternate land of the Government in place of the original khatedari land allotted to them vide order dated 26.05.1982. In pursuance of the said notice dated 20.01.2005, the petitioner along with other allottees submitted their reply, however, without providing the alternate land, the District Collector, Jaisalmer, vide his order dated 09.05.2006 (Annex.6), cancelled allotment of the land made in favour of the petitioner as well as other allottees. 3. Aggrieved of the order dated 09.05.2006 passed by the respondent No.3-District Collector, Jaisalmer, the petitioner preferred a writ petition before this Court being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3978/2006. This Court vide order dated 11.08.2006, after hearing the counsel for the parties, while admitting the writ petition passed an interim order and directed the concerned authorities to allot alternative land in lieu of the land acquired from the present petitioner. 4. In pursuance of the interim order dated 11.08.2006 passed by this Court, alternate land was allotted to the petitioner vide order dated 06.02.2008 (Annex.9) in village Mokala in lieu of the land acquired. 4. In pursuance of the interim order dated 11.08.2006 passed by this Court, alternate land was allotted to the petitioner vide order dated 06.02.2008 (Annex.9) in village Mokala in lieu of the land acquired. Aggrieved against the said allotment order of the alternate land, the petitioner sent a letter dated 16.02.2008 to the authorities stating therein that the alternate land allotted to the petitioner vide allotment order dated 06.02.2008 is inadequate. On receipt of said letter, the Dy. Secretary, Jaipur sought report from the District Collector, Jaisalmer regarding the anomaly in the allotment of land at Village Mokala, pointing out that none of the persons have taken the land allotted to them at Village Mokala. In the circumstances, the District Collector, Jaisalmer vide letter dated 29.09.2011, sought approval from the State Government with respect to allotment of the alternate equivalent land to the petitioner. 5. This Court after taking note of the letter of District Collector, Jaisalmer dated 29.09.2011 disposed of the writ petition vide order dated 25.05.2012 taking into consideration the nature/classification of the land allotted to the respective allottees in terms of the interim orders passed by the Court and directed the State Government to allot equivalent land to the petitioner and other persons within stipulated period. Thereafter on 26.08.2013, a letter was sent by the Tehsildar, Jaisalmer to the petitioner asking therein that the petitioner may submit his consent by way of filing an affidavit for allotment of the alternate land at Village Mokala. The petitioner filed an affidavit for handing over the possession of the land at Mokala. The petitioner also wrote a letter dated 17.12.2012 to the District Collector, Jaisalmer that despite the allotment of land at Mokala, the possession of the land has not been handed over to the petitioner by the concerned Halka Patwari. In view of these two letters and affidavits, the review petition preferred by the State in the case of the petitioner was dismissed as not pressed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the affidavit as well as letter for handing over the possession of the land at Mokala was obtained by the respondents by pressurizing him. This fact was mentioned by the petitioner in para 16 of the writ petition and the same has not been specifically disputed in reply filed by the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the affidavit as well as letter for handing over the possession of the land at Mokala was obtained by the respondents by pressurizing him. This fact was mentioned by the petitioner in para 16 of the writ petition and the same has not been specifically disputed in reply filed by the respondents. He further submits that the land at Mokala was also not available for allotment as the State Government has withdrawn its decision to allot the land at Mokala. 6. He further submits that the other six persons whose writ petition was decided by this Court on 25.05.2012, filed a contempt petition before this Court and in the said contempt petition, this Court on 23.09.2013, gave a direction to the respondents to allot a suitable agricultural land equivalent to the land acquired by the State Government after taking note of nature/classification of the land. In pursuance of the directions issued in the contempt petition on 23.09.2013, the other six persons were allotted the lands at Sadiya, Moolsagar and Basanpeer South. He further contends that the petitioner had not preferred contempt petition and accepted the allotment of land at Mokala, no orders qua the petitioner for allotment of the land at any other place than Mokala was issued. 7. Learned counsel submits that after exchange of number of affidavits between Collector, Jaisalmer and the petitioner, no land for allotment was finalized and ultimately, in pursuance of one additional affidavit filed by the State Government, the matter was taken up for allotment of the land at Khasra No.206 of village Khaderon ki Dhani on the Jaisalmer-Sam Road. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the letter dated 15.07.2021 issued by the SDO, the details of the land of Khasra No.206 were mentioned and the matter was referred to Collector, Jaisalmer. The Collector, Jaisalmer on receiving the letter dated 15.07.2021 from the SDO, referred the matter to the Principal Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan vide its letter dated 22.09.2021 for further instructions in the matter. Learned counsel submits that the matter was deliberated by the Government and after the discussion, a note sheet was prepared on 26.10.2021. The Collector, Jaisalmer on receiving the letter dated 15.07.2021 from the SDO, referred the matter to the Principal Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan vide its letter dated 22.09.2021 for further instructions in the matter. Learned counsel submits that the matter was deliberated by the Government and after the discussion, a note sheet was prepared on 26.10.2021. A bare perusal of the same goes to show that there is no impediment for allotment of agricultural land situated at Khasra No.206 in Village Khaderon Ki Dhani on Jaisalmer-Sam Road in favour of the petitioner. 9. Learned counsel further submits that the State Government has issued communications dated 01.12.2021, 10.02.2022, 11.03.2022 and 24.03.2022 for allotment of the land to the petitioner in consonance with the affidavits filed with a view to maintain parity vis-a-vis other similarly situated persons. Learned counsel further submits that adjoining to the land of Khasra No.206, the recommendations for allotment of land in case of one Bhikha Ram was also made by the SDM to the Collector, Jaisalmer and the Collector has recommended for the grant of allotment of land in favour of Bhikha Ram. He further submits that the recommendation made in favour of Bhikha Ram was not agreed by the Revenue Department on account of the fact that the claim of Bhikha Ram had already been rejected on the earlier occasion. It is in these circumstances, the petitioner has prayed that the writ petition may be allowed and the petitioner may also be allotted the land at a suitable place at par with other six persons who were similarly situated. 10. Per contra, learned State Counsel submits that since the petitioner has accepted the land allotted to him at Mokala and a letter and affidavit to that effect had also been filed by the petitioner, he cannot take a U-turn and ask for allotment of any other piece of land. Learned counsel has tried to impress upon this Court by filing additional affidavits from time to time that the land located at Khasra No.208 is being considered for allotment to the Gaushala and the Khasra No.207 on the Jaisalmer-Sam Highway will be developed for future tourism and commercial activities. Besides this, learned counsel has submitted that petitioner was asked to submit an application to the District Collector, Jaisalmer within a period of 14 days but the petitioner did not exercise his option within the stipulated period. Besides this, learned counsel has submitted that petitioner was asked to submit an application to the District Collector, Jaisalmer within a period of 14 days but the petitioner did not exercise his option within the stipulated period. Learned State Counsel on the strength of the additional affidavits filed before this Court submits that the delay in allotment of the land is caused on behalf of the petitioner and the same cannot be attributed to the respondents as for one reason or the other, the petitioner was not agreeing for allotment of the land suggested by the State Government. He, therefore, prays that in view of the submissions made before this Court, the writ petition is bereft of merit and the same is prayed to be dismissed. 11. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and have gone through the relevant record of the case. 12. The factual aspect of the matter with respect to the allotment of the land made in favour of the petitioner as a landless person in the year 1982 is established from the allotment orders which have been placed on record. The controversy arose when the land allotted to the petitioner way back in the year 1982 was sought to be acquired for the defence purposes and the allotment order was cancelled without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The cancellation order dated 09.05.2006 was challenged by the present petitioner before this Court by way of filing a writ petition bearing No. 3978/2006. While admitting the writ petition, an interim order was passed by this Court on 11.08.2006 which reads as under:- "Heard. Admit. Issue notice. Issue notice of stay application also. In the meanwhile, the petitioner should be allotted equivalent land against the land which has been acquired. The allotment should be made to the petitioner as far as possible within few months ." 13. Ultimately, the writ petition was disposed of on 25.05.2012 with a direction to the State Government to make allotment of an equivalent land taking note of the nature/classification of the land allotted to the respective allottees/petitioners in terms of the interim orders passed by this Court. The entire exercise was to be completed within a period of three months. 14. Ultimately, the writ petition was disposed of on 25.05.2012 with a direction to the State Government to make allotment of an equivalent land taking note of the nature/classification of the land allotted to the respective allottees/petitioners in terms of the interim orders passed by this Court. The entire exercise was to be completed within a period of three months. 14. Since, the respondents had not complied with the directions given by this court vide order dated 25.05.2012, out of eight petitioners, six petitioners filed the contempt petition before this Court for the non-compliance of the order passed by this Court in its true letter and spirit. This Court in the contempt proceedings, passed an order on 23.09.2013 for allotment of a suitable agricultural land equivalent to the land acquired by the State Government after taking note of nature/classification of the land. In pursuance of the directions given in the contempt petition, the State Government vide letter dated 25.10.2013 allotted lands to all the contempt-petitioners except the present petitioner in village Sadiya, Moolsagar and Basanpeer South. It appears that since the petitioner did not file contempt petition and accepted the land allotted to him at Mokala, he was not allotted land at any other place. 15. The petitioner is being discriminated vis-a-vis other persons by allotment of the land which is not similar and equivalent and is not of the same nature or classification vis-a-vis the land allotted to the other similarly situated persons. However, when the petitioner filed affidavit and application for grant of land in Mokala, the State Government vide order dated 25.10.2013 (Annex.19) revoked the sanction granted for allotment of land to the persons like the petitioner in Mokala. Relevant to note that the possession of the land at Mokala was not handed over to the petitioner. 16. The correspondence made by the State Government for compliance of the order passed by this Court and the adamancy not to comply with the same by the respondents is writ large in the present case and on one pretext or the other, the petitioner is being deprived of the allotment of the land of the same nature which was acquired by the State without following the due process of law. 17. 17. The co-ordinate Benches of this Court passed the following orders on various dates which are as under:- "08/05/2018 Learned counsel for the respondent prays for time to seek instruction with respect to the allotment of the land to the petitioner equivalent to the original allotment on the same lines as allotted in favour of other seven persons. List the matter on 10.07.2018. The necessary information be submitted positively by the said date. 10/07/2018 Learned counsel for the respondents prays for time on the ground that Mr. O.P. Boob, Govt. Counsel is not available. Be that as it may, on the last date of hearing, learned counsel for the respondents had taken time to seek instructions with respect to the allotment of the land to the petitioner equivalent to the original allotment on the same lines as allotted in favour of other seven persons. In view of the same, the Tehsildar, Jaisalmer and the District Collector, Jaisalmer are directed to look into the grievance of the petitioner afresh and the proposal submitted by the petitioner after the order dated 08.05.2018 be also taken into consideration and the decision with respect to the proposal be placed on record. List this case on 16.08.2018. 16/08/2018 Shri Boob, learned GC submits that till date, the orders dated 08.05.2018 and 10.07.2018 have not been complied with. In this background, the District Collector, Jaisalmer and Tehsildar, Jaisalmer are directed to remain present in the Court on the next date with the compliance report. List on 07.08.2018. 27/08/2018 As directed, the District Collector, Jaisalmer and Tehsildar, Jaisalmer are present in the Court. Shri Boob, learned G.C. proposes to file an affidavit on behalf of the Collector in response to the earlier direction given by this Court. List on 28.08.2018. Both officers shall remain present in the Court. 28/08/2018 The District Collector, Jaisalmer has filed an affidavit in furtherance of the direction given by this Court on 27.08.2018 in which, at para No.5, it has specifically been sworn and affirmed that in case, the petitioner is not agreeable for the land earlier allotted to him, he may exercise other option for agricultural land in District Jaisalmer subject to certain restrictions. In view of the above, the petitioner is directed to submit an application to the District Collector, Jaisalmer within a period of fourteen days from today setting out his options for allotment of suitable alternate land. In view of the above, the petitioner is directed to submit an application to the District Collector, Jaisalmer within a period of fourteen days from today setting out his options for allotment of suitable alternate land. The District Collector, Jaisalmer shall objectively consider the petitioner’s prayer and submit the compliance report for the Court’s perusal on the next date. The personal presence of the District Collector, Jaisalmer is exempted for future dates of hearing. List on 24.09.2018. 25/03/2021 In wake of onslaught of COVID-19, abundant caution is being taken while hearing the matters in Court. Learned counsel for the respondents Mr. R.D. Bhadu is directed to file an affidavit of the District Collector as to how he proposes to resolve the issue in question considering the earlier orders passed by this Court. The petitioner shall be required to move the fresh application before the District Collector. List on 20.04.2021. 18/11/2021 In wake of second surge in the COVID-19 cases, abundant caution is being maintained, while hearing the matters in Court, for the safety of all concerned. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that on one hand, the recommendation of the petitioner's allotment has been ambiguously submitted to the State Government vide order dated 22.09.2021, whereas on the other hand, another recommendation of the same area has been made, which has been brought on record by the petitioner through his additional affidavit, which is dated 19.08.2021, and the same are required to be explained by learned counsel for the respondents. Learned counsel for the respondents shall also be required to take a stand regarding the conclusion arrived at by the State Government in pursuance of the orders dated 22.09.2021 and 19.08.2021. The State seeks some time to complete his instructions pertaining to both the recommendations. Time prayed for is allowed. List on 26.11.2021. It is needless to observe that the respondents have already allotted the appropriate alternate land to the similarly situated persons. 14/03/2022 Learned counsel for the State seeks a short time to complete his instructions, particularly with respect to hindrance legally caused in the allotment of land to the petitioner between Jaisalmer and Sam. Put up on 11.04.2022, as prayed." 18. It is needless to observe that the respondents have already allotted the appropriate alternate land to the similarly situated persons. 14/03/2022 Learned counsel for the State seeks a short time to complete his instructions, particularly with respect to hindrance legally caused in the allotment of land to the petitioner between Jaisalmer and Sam. Put up on 11.04.2022, as prayed." 18. It is also observed that since the similarly situated persons to the petitioner have already been allotted the land in the nearby area to the Jaisalmer City and the petitioner is being deprived of the same only on account of the fact that the petitioner has not filed the contempt petition along with other six persons in whose favour the lands have been allotted in Sadiya, Moolsagar & Basanpeer South, therefore, this Court feels that the petitioner is being discriminated vis-a-vis other similarly situated six persons. 19. From a close reading of the entire material placed before this Court, I am of the view that there is no legal impediment to allot the land in Khasra No.206 in Village Khaderon ki Dhani. 19. From a close reading of the entire material placed before this Court, I am of the view that there is no legal impediment to allot the land in Khasra No.206 in Village Khaderon ki Dhani. The discussion on Khasra No.206 by the respondents and the Minutes drawn on 26.10.2021 are reproduced hereunder:- ^^bl laca/k es fuosnu gS fd foHkkx Lrj ls Hkwfe dk vkoVu fo'ks"k iz;kstu gsrq lacf/kr vkaoVu fu;eks ds vkyksd esa laikfnr fd;k tkrk gSA tSlyesj ls le dks tkus okyh le&tSlyesj eq[; lM+d ds i;ZVu dh n`f"V ls izkd`frd lkSUn;Z dh ;FkkfLFkfr cuk;s j[kus ds laca/k esa o"kZ 2012 es rRle; jkT; ljdkj }kjk fy;s x;s iz'kklfud fu.kZ; ¼i;ZVu foHkkx }kjk tkjh cSBd dk;Zokgh fooj.k fnukad 14-02-2012 i` 356&357@lh½ dh vuqikyuk esa le&tSlyesj eq[; lM+d ds nksuks rjQ 2 fdŒehŒ dh lhek esa fLFkr Hkwfe dk vkacVu@:ikarj.k gsrq izfrcaf/kr fd;s tkus ds Øe es jktLo vkoaVu fu;eks es bl gsrq fd;s x;s la'kks/ku ds Øe esa orZeku es izfrca/kkRed fLFkfr fuEukuqlkj gS%& 1- jktLFkku Hkw&jktLo ¼v{k; ÅtkZ L=ksrks ij vk/kkfjr ÅtkZ mRiknu bZdkbZ dh LFkkiuk gsrq Hkwfe vkoaVu½ fu;e] 2007 ds fu;e&4¼,p½ ds rgr le&tSlyesj eq[; lMd ds chp ls 2-00 fdeh dh lhek es vkus okyh leLr Hkwfe dks vkoaVu gsrq izfrcaf/kr fd;k x;k gSA 2- jktLFkku Hkw&jktLo ¼d`f"k iz;kstukFkZ Hkwfe dk vkoaVu fu;e] 1970 ds fu;e 4 es d`f"k iz;kstukFkZ vkoaVu gsrq miyC/k ugh gksus okyh Hkwfe;ksa es le&tSlyesj eq[; lM+d dk mYys[k ugh gSA mDr ds n`f"Vxr izdj.k es vkosfnr Hkwfe ds d`f"k iz;kstukFkZ vkoaVUk fd;s tkus ds laca/k esa fu;ekuqlkj fopkj fd;k tk ldrk gSA 3- jktLFkku vkS|ksfxd {ks= vkoaVu fu;e] 1959 ds fu;e&2ch es of.kZr Hkwfe;ksa esa mDr laca/k esa dksbZ izfrca/kkRed izko/kku micaf/kr ugha gSA 4- jktLFkku Hkw jktLo ¼xkzeh.k {ks=ks esa d`f"k Hkwfe dk vd`f"k iz;kstukFkZ lEifjorZu½ fu;e] 2007 esa lEifjorZu gsrq izfrcaf/kr Hkwfe;ksa esa ds fu;e 5 es bl laca/k esa dksbZ izfrca/kkRed izko/kku micaf/kr ugha gSA 20. It is also noted that in pursuance of the additional affidavits filed by the District Collector, Jaisalmer, the options were asked from the petitioner and the petitioner gave the option for land of Khasra Nos207 & 208 of Village Khaderon ki Dhani, Jaisalmer-Sam Road, however, the same was turned down by the State Government on the ground that the land of Khasra No.208 is being considered for allotment to Gaushala and for the land of Khasra No.207, it was mentioned that it is situated on the Jaisalmer-Sam highway and the same will be developed for future tourism and commercial activities. 21. During the pendency of these proceedings, the SDO, Jaisalmer vide his letter dated 15.7.2021 recommended the land of Khasra No.206 and the details were also mentioned in this letter which was sent to the Collector, Jaisalmer. The Collector, Jaisalmer forwarded the same to the Principal Secretary, Government of Rajasthan for further action vide his letter dated 22.2.2021. On this Communication, the matter was deliberated and vide note-sheet dated 26.10.2021, it was recorded that there is no impediment if the land in Khasra No.206 is allotted to the petitioner. Thereafter, certain communications were also made to the Collector, Jaisalmer for allotment of land in pursuance of the affidavits given before this Court. 22. While the proceeding with respect to Khasra No.206 was pending consideration, the respondents further made a communication to the Government for allotment of land in Khasra No.124 in village Khaderon ki Dhani in favour of the petitioner. Learned State counsel verbally informed this Court that recommendation for allotment of land in Khasra No.124 of village Khaderon Ki Dhani has also been turned down. 23. While the correspondence with respect to allotment of land of Khasra No.206 of village Khaderon Ki Dhani was under consideration, this Court asked the State counsel that is there any legal impediment for allotting a land to the petitioner in Khasra No.206; the State counsel was not in a position to show any legal impediment for allotment of the land at Khasra No.206 to the petitioner. 24. A close reading of the affidavits/circulars filed on behalf of the State Government shows that the land at Khasra No.206 of village Khaderon Ki Dhani between Jaisalmer-Sam road can be allotted to the petitioner for agricultural purposes and there is no legal impediment for allotment of this land. 24. A close reading of the affidavits/circulars filed on behalf of the State Government shows that the land at Khasra No.206 of village Khaderon Ki Dhani between Jaisalmer-Sam road can be allotted to the petitioner for agricultural purposes and there is no legal impediment for allotment of this land. It is also noted that after canceling the allotment of the land to the petitioner in the year 2006, no alternate land has been allotted to the petitioner till date and petitioner has already suffered a lot on that count as other similarly situated persons are already enjoying the benefits of the lands allotted in the close proximity of the Jaisalmer city itself for all these years. 25. In view of the discussion made above, the present writ petition merit acceptance and the same is hereby allowed. The respondents are directed to allot a suitable piece of land to the petitioner in Khasra No.206 at vage Khaderon ki Dhani.