S. S. CHADHA ( 1 ) THIS petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution seeks a writ of certiorari to quash the memorandum dt. June 21, 1982 issued by the Delhi Development Authority directing the petitioner to yield up the residential Plot No. 28-A Block No. B-4, in Safdarjang Residential Scheme and the building thereon the ground that it has now been discovered that the Delhi Administration, had never made any recommendation for allotment of a plot to the petitioner as none of his lands had ever been acquired by the administration for purposes of planned development of Delhi. ( 2 ) THE Government had framed a policy notification on May 2, 1961 for acquisition, development and disposal of land in Delhi Under that scheme as a general policy, the acquired land was to be disposed of by auction except in certain specified cases where land could be allotted at pre-determined rates, namely, the cost of acquisition and development plus additional charges. The exception made is in favour of those persons whose land had been acquired by the Government for planned development of Delhi under various specified notifications. They are made eligible for allotment of alternative plot in lieu of their acquired land according to the terms and conditions contained in that policy decision. The petitioner applied for allotment of an alternative plot in lieu of the land acquired. The application was considered by the Delhi Administration. The petitioner was called upon to submit the proof of ownership which was supplied. The petitioner was also called upon to intimate whether the house in which the petitioner was then residing was owned by him or was rented and this information was also furnished. Enquiries were made from the Land Acquisition (Officer?) of the land and payment of compensation to the petitioner. Thereafter a decision was taken by the Delhi Administration and communicated to the Delhi Development Authority to allot a plot of 250 sq. yds. to the petitioner in the North Zone Residential Scheme as he had been found entitled to the same. A copy of the letter was sent to the petitioner. The petitioner requested for change of recommendations of the plot in South Zone as the land acquired was included in Village Saidabad which was in the South Zone. This was accepted by the Delhi Administration. A copy of the letter was sent to the petitioner. The petitioner requested for change of recommendations of the plot in South Zone as the land acquired was included in Village Saidabad which was in the South Zone. This was accepted by the Delhi Administration. ( 3 ) THE Delhi Development Authority offered a plot of about 201-250 sq. mtrs. in pursuance of the recommendations made by the Delhi Administration and called upon the petitioner to deposit the earnest money of Rs. 5,000. 00. The petitioner made the requisite deposit. He was invited for the draw of specific plot to be held on Sept. 11, 1979. In the draw of lots plot No. 28-A, Block No. B-4 was allotted to the petitioner. The petitioner made the deposit of the requisite amount of premium. The formal possession of the said plot was delivered to the petitioner on Dec. 27. 1979 the petitioner thereafter applied for approval of the construction plans. The approval was granted by the Delhi Administration in the letter dt. Mar. 11, l980. Thereafter the petitioner constructed a building and completed it by Nov. 1980 as per the approved plans. ( 4 ) IT is thereafter that the petitioner received the impugned notice dt. June 21. 1982 from the Delhi Development Authority cancelling the allotment of the plot and calling upon the petitioner to peacefully yield up the said residential plot and the building constructed thereon. The ground mentioned in the impugned letters is that it had now been discovered that the Delhi Administration had never made any recommendations for allotment of a piot to the petitioner. In the counter-affidavit filed by the Delhi Administration, the reason given is different. It is now stated that the petitioner was declared bhumidar with effect from June 8, 1970 of the land in lieu of which an alternative ptot was claimed and that the decree does not declare the petitioner as bhumidar with effect from July 20, 1954 as alleged. ( 5 ) THE right to acquire, hold and dispose property has been omitted by the Constitution (44th Amendment) Act, 1973 and is no longer a fundamental right guaranteed under Art. 19 of the Constitution. It has become a legal right. Property while ceasing to be fundamental right has been given express recognition as a legal right. ( 5 ) THE right to acquire, hold and dispose property has been omitted by the Constitution (44th Amendment) Act, 1973 and is no longer a fundamental right guaranteed under Art. 19 of the Constitution. It has become a legal right. Property while ceasing to be fundamental right has been given express recognition as a legal right. The petitioner had acquired a right in property as he became the owner of the tease-hold rights. The petitioner was found entitled for the allotment of an alternative plot under the scheme of large Scale Acquisition, Development and Disposal of Land in Delhi . The petitioner made the requisite deposits of the earnest money and thereafter the balance of the premium due. The petitioner was delivered the possession of the said ptot in part performance of the agreement. The lease-deed, however, has not been executed. The petitioner has acquired a right in property. This property of the petitioner is sought to be taken away by the inpugned order without issuing any show cause notice or without providing any opportunity to present his view point and without any proceeding in law. Once recommendations were madeand acted upon by the Delhi Development Authority by delivering possession of the plot, a valuable right has accrued to the petitioner. The petitioner has in fact made construction of a building on the said plot after obtaining sanction of the building plans from the competent authority and by spending huge amounts. The respondents have placed the petitioner in such a position from which they cannot in law resile. Because of the action of the respondent the petitioner has been placed in a position from where the withdrawal would cause financial loss to the petitioner. The effect of withdrawing the, recommendation and cancelling the allotment would be depriving the petitioner of a valuable property right without any compensation for no fault of his. The impugned action of the respondents is thus not just, fair or reasonable. ( 6 ) APART from it, the power to determine ons (sic) affecting the rights of citizens imposes the limitation that the power should be exercised in conformity with the principles of natural justice. The impugned action of the respondents is thus not just, fair or reasonable. ( 6 ) APART from it, the power to determine ons (sic) affecting the rights of citizens imposes the limitation that the power should be exercised in conformity with the principles of natural justice. The principles of natural justice are those rules which have been laid down by judicial pronouncements as being the minimum protection of civil and property rights of the individual against the arbitrary procedure that may be adopted by the executive to the exercise of administrative power. One of the essential requirements of natural justice is that every person whose right to property is affected, must have a reasonable notice of the case he has to meet and then he must have a reasonable opportunity of being heard by an impartial authority. No adverse order can be passed without notice to the affected party. Withdrawing/cancellation of the allotment affects the petitioner s right to property. The impugned letter dt. June 21. 1982 is thus violative of principles of natural justice and is entitled to be struck down. ( 7 ) THE writ petition is allowed. The impugned letter dt. June 21, 1982 is hereby quashed. On the facts and circumstances of the case. I make no order as to costs. Petition allowed.