SHETHNA, J. - (1.) MADARSAH Taiyabiah Society of Udaipur filed S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4084/94 before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and prayed that the impugned order at Annex. 13 dated 19. 7. 94 be quashed and set aside.
(2.) THE petitioner is a registered society. It is running school having about 1800 students in the school building which according to it was a very small one, therefore, they wanted some more land for extension of the school building. Accordingly, it approached the Collector, Udaipur who in turn recommended to the Secretary, Urban Improvement Trust on 30. 6. 72 (Annex. 1) for allotment of land to the petitioner. By a resolution dated 24. 5. 84, the U. I. T. Udaipur also recommended the allotment of land to the petitioner and accordingly, wrote a letter dated 10. 10. 84 (Annex. 2) to the State Government. In turn, the State Government directed U. I. T. to allot the land to the petitioner by its letter dated 3. 1. 85 (Annex. 3 ). Consequent thereof, the U. I. T. allotted 6361 sq. ft. land to the petitioner for only Rs. 1,20,859/ -. THE said amount was deposited by the petitioner along with its letter dated 17. 3. 85 (Annex. 4 ). THE U. I. T. executed a document of transfer in favour of the petitioner which is at Annex. 5. It is contended in the petition by the petitioner that there was a city wall which was about 5-6 feet away from the school building which is about 10 feet wide. The same was removed by Municipal Council, Udaipur in 1978-79. The said land which was in front of the school was also available for allotment. It is the case of the petitioner that on 23. 1. 85, it deposited Rs. 1,28,364/- and accordingly, the Municipal Council executed the registered sale deed on 25. 12. 89 (Annex. 6 ). The petitioner claimed to be in possession of the said land. In para 13 of the petition, it has been stated that the petitioner improved the land and spent huge amount for its development and also raised construction which was approved by the U. I. T. as well as Municipal Council, Udaipur. Plan is at Annex. 7. On 10. 4. 91 notice (Annex. 8) was received by the petitioner from the State Government whereby the petitioner was asked to appear before the Minister, Local Self Government and to show cause as to why the allotment made in favour of the petitioner should not be cancelled. At that stage, the petitioner filed writ petition before this Court being writ petition No. 1901/91 which was admitted and ad-interim stay order was granted in favour of the petitioner whereby it was ordered that the petitioner shall not be dispossessed from the land in question. By another notice dated 4. 3. 94, the petitioner was asked to file objections, if any, within 15 days from the receipt thereof. Accordingly, objections were submitted on 28. 3. 94. Writ petition No. 1909/91 came to be dismissed as infructuous by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 8. 8. 94 (Annex. 14 ). Thereafter, the petitioner filed representation dated 15. 8. 94 before the Minister, Local Self Government (Annex. 15 ). According to the petitioner, nothing was done on the representation made by it but the U. I. T. , Udaipur called upon the petitioner to remove the construction immediately failing which all the constructions put on by it shall be demolished.
(3.) THE Deputy Secretary to the State Government wrote a letter dated 19. 7. 94 (Annex. 13) to the Secretary, U. I. T. , Udaipur and Commissioner, Municipal Council, Udaipur stating that after hearing the executive members of the petitioner school, the State Government has decided to cancel the allotment of land made in favour of the petitioner and to refund the amount with interest to the petitioner because the allotment of the said land was not in public interest and because of the road being small, accidents are taking place there and two persons have already lost their lives in fatal accident. This has been challenged by the petitioner by way of writ petition No. 4084/94 which was filed on 22. 8. 94. It was placed for orders before the learned Single Judge on 24. 8. 94 wherein notice was ordered to be issued. On 2. 9. 94, it was submitted by the respondents that it was a public road and it was used as such since long but now the same is blocked by the petitioner whereby many problems were created and it was submitted that the public road cannot be allotted or sold to any one including the petitioner. However, it was contended by the petitioner that the road on one side does not lead to any other place and it is blocked. This statement was denied by the other side. In view of the above, the learned Single Judge by his order dated 2. 9. 94 appointed Mr. V. K. Mathur, Advocate of this Court as Commissioner to visit the site and submit his report about the existing position at the site. Accordingly, the report dated 12. 9. 1994 was submitted which is on the record of the case. ;