JUDGMENT 1. - All these writ petitions involve a similar question of law and fact as such they are disposed of by a common order. For the convenient disposal of all these writ petitions the facts of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2208 of 1982: Zorawar singh vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. are taken into consideration. 2. The petitioner is resident of village Lodha (Khandu). The petitioner owns agricultural land as well as house and shop in village Lodha which has been submerged with the construction of Mahi Bajajsagar Project. The land acquisition proceedings were initiated and it was decided by agreement that the plots shall be given in the new colony which is named as Khandu Colony in village Thikariya, Panchayat Thikariya. A rehabilitation scheme was prepared and it was contemplated that those living in village Khandu and nearby villages will be allotted free of costs land for residential plots in the new colony which was to be constructed in village and Panchayat Thikariya. In pursuance of the so-called rehabilitation scheme a plot No. 37/81 of the size 40' x 60' was allotted to the petitioner in village Khandd in District Banswara near police line and a patta Annx. I was issued. According to the petitioner, the possession of the said plot was also handed over to him on 6-3-1975. There was scheme of the Housing Board that house shall be constructed by the Board in the Khandu Colony. The petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 50/- which was the initial deposit before the construction starts in the Housing Board as per the scheme of the Government. The petitioner was, however, informed on 21-6-1976 that the plot which was granted to the petitioner in the year 1975 has been cancelled. A copy of the order has been placed on record as Annx. 3. This order was passed behind the back of the petitioner and without giving him an opportunity of hearing why the allotment in favour of the petitioner made in the year 1975 has been cancelled in 1978. The petitioner made a number of representations, but without any result. Ultimately the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 3. This order was passed behind the back of the petitioner and without giving him an opportunity of hearing why the allotment in favour of the petitioner made in the year 1975 has been cancelled in 1978. The petitioner made a number of representations, but without any result. Ultimately the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 3. A return has been filed by the respondents and it has been pointed out that it is true that a plot was allotted to the petitioner, but the same has been cancelled because as per the scheme a plot free of cost is only allotted to the person who is oustee of the village Khandu and not of any other village. Thus, it was decided at the State Level Co-ordination Committee's meeting held on 19-9-1974 that for bigger village like Khandu of Mahi Bajajsagar and Galiakot of Kadana submergence area, scheme shall have to be prepared by the Housing Board for constructing the residential houses for the oustees of these places. Thus, it was decided that the residents of village Khandu would only be entitled for a free of cost plot and not other ousters. Thus, it was submitted that the petitioner was wrongly allotted and the said mistake has been set right by cancelling the allotment made in favour of the petitioner. 4. I need not go into the question that whether the petitioner is entitled for allotment or not. But the fact remains that the petitioner has been allotted a plot measuring 40' x 60' way back in the year 1975 and when it was sought to be cancelled in the year 1978 it was at least expected from the authorities that they should have given a notice to him for good and sufficient reason that they want to cancel the allotment in favour of the petitioner. The fact of allotment in favour of the petitioner has not been disputed and it has also not been disputed that the petitioner is an oustee because his land stood submerged in the construction of Mahi Bajajsagar Project. Whether the allotment initially made in favour of the petitioner was contemplated under the scheme or not and whether the petitioner is entitled to that allotment or not in terms of the scheme, nothing has been said in the cancellation order. The cancellation order is omnibusly silent. Whether the allotment initially made in favour of the petitioner was contemplated under the scheme or not and whether the petitioner is entitled to that allotment or not in terms of the scheme, nothing has been said in the cancellation order. The cancellation order is omnibusly silent. It only says that on consideration the allotment in favour of the petitioner is quashed. Such kind of order in the present democratic set up cannot be sustained. Once a lawful order has been passed under the authority of the competent person and for any reason if such allotment is sought to be cancelled then at least the person who had been in peaceful possession of the land allotted in his favour for good 3 years is required to be heard. I also failed to understand that why residents of one village have been fitted by allotment in lieu of compensation and other persons similarly situated are being denied the similar treatment. I need not go into that question any further because since I find that the order of cancellation is bad for the reason that this has been passed without hearing the petitioner. Therefore, this order of cancellation Annx. 3 is quashed. 5. The writ petitions are allowed. The order Annx. 3 is set aside and it is open for the respondents to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. The parties are left to bear their own costs.Writ Allowed *******