MATHUR, J. - (1.) PETITIONER by this writ petition has prayed that by an appropriate writ, order or direction the order passed by the respondent on 23. 12. 89 Anx. 10 cancelling the allotment of the petitioner of four residential plots may be quashed and the allotment of these four residential plots should be allowed to remain intact.
(2.) THE petitioner is a resident of Jaisalmer and is working as Assistant Manager, Jaisalmer, Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. Jaisalmer. THE Notified Area Committee Jaisalmer (hereinafter referred as the Committee) decided to allot commercial plots out side Amar Sagar Pirol by public auction in the year 1983 and the petitioner applied for allotment of two such commercial plots. Two commercial plots bearing Nos. 4 and 5 situated outside Amar Sagar Pirol were purchased in public auction by the petitioner on 16. 11. 83 for a sum of Rs. 19,500/- and 19001/- respectively. One fourth of the auction price were deposited by the petitioner to the committee. THEreafter the petitioner was informed on 29. 5. 84 that the administrative sanction of the above two plots sold to him in open auction had been received and he was directed to deposit the balance three-fourth auction price within 30 days. In pursuance to this letter, petitioner deposited the remaining amount. THE petitioner approached the Executive Officer several times for executing the lease-deed in respect of the aforesaid two plots and handing over the possession but the same was not given. THEreafter the matter was considered in the meeting of the committee dt. 12. 9. 85 which was presided over by the then Collector. THEreafter the petitioner was allotted the four residential plots in lieu of the two commercial plots which were required by the town planner for development of the area and these four plots were allotted to the petitioner vide order dt. 15. 10. 85 Anx. 4. THE petitioner was asked to deposit the excess amount in a sum of Rs. 3740/ -. THE possession of this land was not given and the petitioner requested the Executive Officer to execute the lease-deed and he deposited the necessary stamp for execution of the same. But that could not be done and suddenly on 23. 12. 89 vide Anx. 19 all these four plots in favour of the petitioner were cancelled. Aggrieved against this the petitioner rushed to this court by filing the present writ petition. A reply has been filed by the respondent and the respondent has taken the position that u/s 300 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, petitioner has a statutory remedy of filing an appeal and it is also submitted that four residential plots cannot be allotted to the petitioner under the Rajasthan Municipalities (Disposal of Urban Land) Rules, 1974. Mr. Mehta, learned counsel for the respondent has strenuously urged that the allotment of these plots were not proper, therefore, the subsequent committee felt persuaded to cancel these plots. Mr. Khatri, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order dt. 23. 12. 89 has been passed in utter violation of principle of natural justice. This appears to be correct and well founded. Once the two commercial plots which was earlier purchased by the petitioner in public auction is sought to be required for the Area Committee for the town development and Area Committee felt persuaded to give him four plots in lieu of two commercial plots and the resolution to this affect was passed after hearing the petitioner on his application dt. 13. 9. 85 Anx. 3. This meeting was presided over by no less than the Collector himself and it was resolved to allot the residential plots to the petitioner in lieu of two commercial plots and there was no reason for respondent to change the decision and cancel the order Anx. 4 dt. 15. 10. 85, after four years i. e. on 23. 12. 89. This act of the respondent is absolutely high handed act and has no legal basis. If these four plots were required by the respondent for some reason then they should have taken a proper recourse to the law instead of passing an arbitrary order dt. 23. 10. 1989. The act of the respondent is highly arbitrary and undesirable. Once a matter has been decided by the Area Committee headed by the Collector then it is not open for Executive Officer to cancel that order without showing any justification for the same of following the principle of natural justice. Mr. Mehta despite all efforts could not justify the cancellation of these four plots. In the result the writ petition is allowed and the order dated 23. 12. 1989 (Anx. 10) is quashed. The respondent shall restore these four plots to the petitioner forthwith. The petitioner is entitled to a cost of Rs. 1,000/ -. . ;