ORDER
J.C. Verma, J.
1. The grievance of the petitioner is that he is a landless and homeless person who is in need of a plot, and, therefore, seeks direction to the respondents for alloting a plot for construction of residence in Jaipur City as per entitlement under Rajasthan Municipalities (Disposal of Urban Land) Rules, 1974 (hereinafter to he referred as the ‘Rules of 1974’).
2. The Rules of 1974 do provide for disposal of plots which the competent authority decides to dispose of either by way of allotment or by way of auction. It is the contention of the petitioner that certain notification was issued in the year 1983 where a movement has been launched by the State Government for Housing Organisation and Urban Development under different heads which included disposal of cases relating to sale of land (including stray plots and strips of lands), regularisalion of old possessions, allotment of land to backward castes and weaker sections, conversion (sic) agricultural land, cases of allotment to institutions and development plans. Counsel for the petitioner submits that under this notification certain unauthorised possession of certain persons have been regularised whereby the vacant stray plots, lying in different parts of the City. have not been sold or allotted. The petitioner wants to submit that on the one hand the State had been regularising the possession of the trespassers whereas the genuine persons who do require plots for residence have been ignored and thus, encouragement has been given to the trespassers. However, the petitioner is not challenging the action of the respondents in regularising the possession of unauthorised persons. On the direction of this Court, the respondent No. 5 had also filed the details of certain vacant lands situated in the City. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the vacant land, list of which has been provided showing the locations should either he allotted or put to auction so that the petitioner be allowed to purchase one of such vacant land. Counsel for the petitioner has not been able to produce any notification or any provisions of the rules, whereby it might have been made mandatory or even salutary for compelling the respondents to sell the vacant land wherever it is stated as a compelling duly of the Slate. It cannot be denied that planned housing scheme is required and even if any land is lying vacant or available, it is up to the respondents to frame the scheme for disposal of any such vacant land, if the respondents so consider it appropriate after going through and scrutinizing all the relevant factors in disposing of such vacant plots. The petitioner apprehends that if such plots are not sold immediately, there is every likelihood that these plots may also be trespassed and under the garb of the notification of unauthorised possessions certain trespassers would gain march on the rights of the persons like the petitioner who want the State load speedily in disposing of such plots before they arc trespassed. Apprehension of the petitioner is appreciable and the State is duty-bound to protect the public property from such trespassers. It is not always necessary that the State is bound to sell the plots to the trespassers. The State may even evict them in accordance with law, if any particular person trespasses is found to be in illegal possession. It is expected from the State to see that the plots lying vacant in Jaipur City are not irespassed any more and the illegal encroachment or trespassing is also got vacated if such possession do not fall under the tests of regularisation of the unauthorised possessions.
3. The petitioner prays that he should be allotted a house under 1974 disposal rules as such. At present the petitioner has no such right for compelling to the State for allotting the house. However, whenever the respondent frames any scheme or any land becomes available with the respondents and a conscious decision is taken by the respondents to dispose of any such land by way of allotment or by way of auction or sale in whether manner, the petitioner is at liberty to apply under the rules whenever such occasion arises but in the circumstances the contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted that only because of the reason there is certain land lying vacant, he should be allotted a plot out of that vacant plot.
4. The writ petition has no merit and is
dismissed, no order as to costs.
