SHETHNA, J. - (1.) THE petitioner, State of Rajasthan, has filed the present petition through the Sheep and Wool Officer, Jalore and challenged the impugned orders dt. 20. 2. 82, 27. 1. 87 and 29. 5. 90. THE respondent no. 1 Municipal Board, Jalore initially allotted a piece of land measuring 435600 sq. fts. to the District Sheep and Wool Department, Jalore for the construction of sheds by an order dt. 29. 1. 58 and the possession of the same was also handed over. However, for as many as long 24 years, the conditions put in the allotment order dt. 29. 1. 58 (Annex. 1) were not complied with by the petitioner, therefore, a notice was given to the petitioner on 9. 2. 82 by the respondent Municipality to show cause as to why the allotment made in favour of the petitioner should not be cancelled. THE petitioner replied to the said show cause notice which is not on the record of the case but from the impugned order dated 20. 2. 82 (Annex. 2), it is clear that the explanation offered in the reply by the petitioner was not found satisfactorily, therefore, the earlier allotment order dt. 29. 1. 58 (Annex. 1) was cancelled and the petitioner was asked to hand over the possession by 26. 2. 82 to the respondent Municipality otherwise the possession would be taken from the petitioner by the respondent Municipality.
(2.) AGGRIEVED by the above impugned order at Annex. 2, the petitioner approached S. D. O. , Jalore under Section 85 (1) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 (for short `the Act') for setting aside the same, who referred the matter under Section 285 (1) of the Act to the learned Collector for setting aside the cancellation order at Annex. 2. However, the learned Collector did not agree with the recommendation made by the S. D. O. and, therefore, rejected the application by his impugned order dated 27. 1. 87 (Annex. 3) as the learned Collector was of the opinion that there was no construction raised by the petitioner prior to the passing of the cancellation order. Not satisfied with the order passed by the Collector, the petitioner State of Rajasthan continued to challenge the same by way of filing revision petition before the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Jodhpur who also dismissed the said revision petition by his order dated 29. 5. 90 (Annex. 4) on the ground that the land in question was allotted to the department of the petitioner for the construction of sheds but the department failed to raise any construction and put up the sheds, therefore, as per the conditions mentioned in the allotment order, the allotment order stood automatically cancelled. The learned Additional Divisional Commissioner, Jodhpur has gone even to that extent by stating that the initial allotment order made in favour of the petitioner itself was illegal and that the land in question was already allotted to some of the persons by the respondent Municipality which was not only developed but some of them even put up construction, there on. The above impugned orders at Annexs. 1, 2, 3 and 4 were initially challenged by the petitioner before this Court by way of a writ petition no. 5382/91 which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 8. 11. 95. Not satisfied with that, D. B. Civil Special Appeal No. 109/97 was filed and the Division Bench of this Court disposed of the same on 10. 3. 97 with a liberty to file fresh petition by joining necessary parties. Though the order was passed by the Division Bench on 10. 3. 97 reserving liberty to the petitioner to file fresh petition by joining necessary parties, this writ petition came to be filed on 2. 12. 97 i. e. after a period of nine months. Be that as it may. The matter was initially admitted by the learned Single Judge of this Court (Hon'ble Mr. V. G. Palshikar, J.) and the notices were issued to the respondents. Learned Addl. Advocate General Mr. R. L. Jangid with his usual force at command submitted that the allotment order made in favour of the petitioner way back in 1958 could not have been cancelled by the respondent Municipality after a lapse of period of 24 years. he submitted that as per the allotment order, the construction was already put up but some persons committed trespass over the land, but that itself would not be a ground for the respondent Municipality to cancel the allotment order. This is a pure question of fact as to whether there was a construction put up by the respondent State as per the allotment order on the land in question or not? Before cancelling the allotment order, the respondent Municipality issued notice to the petitioner and call upon it to show cause as to why the allotment made in its favour should not be cancelled because of the non-compliance of the conditions and not putting up the sheds on the land in question. It was also replied but surprisingly that reply is not coming forward nd not placed on the record of the case. Be that as it may. From the impugned order at Annex. 2, it is clear that the reply of the petitioner State was considered and it has been stated in the impugned order at Annex. 2 that the petitioner State failed to explain satisfactorily about not complying with the conditions of the allotment order. the very fact that the petitioner has to join now in all 33 respondents shows that number of persons had already put up the constructions and such an order passed in 1982 which fact has been confirmed by not only Collector on an application made by the petitioner but also confirmed by Additional Divisional Commissioner, Jodhpur in revision petition filed by the State, and the same cannot be disturbed after a period of almost 17 years by this Court. when the authorities below have concurrently found against the petitioner and dismissed its application and revision petition by holding that there was no construction and there was a clear breach of the conditions mentioned in the allotment order, then in my opinion, there was no other alternative or option for the respondent Municipality but to cancel the allotment order because such a valuable piece of land cannot be kept vacant for all the times to come. Once the allotment is cancelled, the respondent Municipality is bound to allot it to others and the petitioner today cannot say that it is still in possession of the land. Several persons have already put up constructions on the land in question except the respondent no. 3 Bank and it will be a National waste if the interim order granted earlier is continued and by entertaining such petition. In view of the above discussion, this petition fails and is dismissed. . ;