JUDGMENT 1. 1. This special appeal is directed against the order, dated February 5, 1987 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1357 of 1983 filed by the appellant. 2. In the said writ petition the appellant had challenged the order, of the Government of Rajasthan dated, 2nd April, 1982 and 4th may, 1983. The dispute relates to the land in khasra No. 305 measuring 5 bighas 13 Biswas and khasra No. 305/5 measuring 45 bighas situated in village Govindpura. The said land was cultivated by the appellant from the years 1962 to 1965 as a ghair khatedar tenant. The case of the appellant is that the said land was allotted to him by the Sub-Divisional officer Malpura as a khatedar tenant and the pass book was given to him on 30th April, 1974 and the mutation was made in his name on 3rd October, 1977. The Assistant Registrar Cooperative Societies, Tonk by letter dated. 17th March, 1981, wrote to the Collector, Tonk that the Pachewar Raiyat Tenant Agricultural Society was allotted this land and the society has been liquidated as it became defunct and the Assistant Registrar request did for grant of sanction for resumption of the land. On the recommendation of the Collector, Tonk the State Government by its order, dated 2nd April. 1982, directed the appellant to hand over the possession of the said land. Against the order, dated, 2nd April, 1982 the appellant filed a review petition which was dismissed by the State Government by order dated, 4th May, 1983. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders the appellant filed the writ petition giving rise to this special appeal. Before the learned Single Judge, it was urged that the order dated 2nd April, 1982 was passed in complete violation of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as the appellant was not given any opportunity of being heard before the said order was passed. The learned Single Judge accepted the said contention of the appellant and found that the basic requirement of the principles of natural justice, namely, audi alterm partem was violated while passing the order dated 2nd April, 1982. The learned Single Judge, therefore. The learned Single Judge accepted the said contention of the appellant and found that the basic requirement of the principles of natural justice, namely, audi alterm partem was violated while passing the order dated 2nd April, 1982. The learned Single Judge, therefore. quashed the orders dated 2nd April, 1982 and 4th May, 1983 and gave the following directions: "The Collector, Tonk is hereby directed to conduct an enquiry in this matter after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and the other concerned persons. In case it is found that the petitioner took possession of the land in an illegal manner he be disposed and in case it is further found that there was connivance of the revenue authorities with the petitioner in creating documentary evidence of khatedari right in his favour, an appropriate disciplinary action shall be taken against them." The appellant has filed this special appeal wherein he has sought to assail the directions given by the learned Single Judge, which have been referred to above. 3. Shri Vyas, the learned counsel for the appellant, has urged that while issuing a writ of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution, the learned Single Judge could only quash the orders which were impugned in the writ petition and that it was not permissible for the learned Single Judge to give the directions which he has given. We find no substance in the aforesaid contention. The orders dated 2nd April, 1982 and 4th May, 1983 have been quashed by the learned Single Judge on the view that the order dated 2nd April, 1982 was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. The learned Single Judge has directed the Collector Tonk to conduct an enquiry into the matter after giving an opportunity of being heard to the appellant and other concerned persons. A further direction was given by the learned Single Judge that if it is found that the appellant took possession in an illegal manner he be dispossessed. The said direction became necessary because the earlier orders dated 2nd April, 1982 and 4th May, 1983, which were quashed by the learned Single Judge, contained a direction to the appellant to hand over the possession of the land in dispute. The said direction became necessary because the earlier orders dated 2nd April, 1982 and 4th May, 1983, which were quashed by the learned Single Judge, contained a direction to the appellant to hand over the possession of the land in dispute. If, after giving an opportunity to the appellant, it is found that he had obtained the possession of the land illegally the directions similar to that contained in the earlier orders, dated. 2nd April, 1982 and 4th May, 19S3 about delivery of possession would be necessary. We, therefore. find nothing wrong in the directions that have been given by the learned Single Judge that in case it is found that the appellant took possession of the land in an illegal manner he be dispossessed. In this context, it may be mentioned that under Article 226 of the Constitution this Court is not hide bound by the traditional concept of the writs which were issued by the court, in England and in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution this Court can fashion the relief taking into account the facts and circumstances of the particular case. In our opinion the learned Single Judge was justified in giving the directions sought to be as ailed by the appellant in this special appeal. 4. We find no merit in this special appeal and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.Appeal dismissed. *******