Judgment R. P. SAXENA, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONER by means of this writ petition has prayed that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the order dated 6-8-1991 (Annex. 3) passed by the District Collector, Nagaur be quashed and respondents Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5 be directed not to interfere in his possession and not to demolish construction raised by him on the disputed plot of land. ( 2 ) SUCCINCTLY stated the petitioners case is that he purchased the disputed plot of land measuring 80 ft. x 35 ft. = 311 1/9 square yards situated in Ward No. 1, Nagaur vide registered sale deed dated 30-4-1991 (Annex. 1) from Shri Sag Ram Jat (respondent No. 2) and procured permission to raise construction thereon from the Municipal Board, Nagaur (respondent No. 3) vide permission letter dated 22-7-1991 (Annex. 2) and also started construction. That on 7-9-1991, Ganga Singh (respondent No. 1), who is now Chairman of the Municipal Board, Nagaur, along with his staff came to the said plot and wanted to demolish the construction raised thereon. respondent No. 1 also informed the petitioner that the sale deed Annex. 1 had been cancelled. It is further the case of the petitioner that thereupon he contacted respondent No. 2 and came to know that the District Collector, Nagaur (respondent No. 4) by his impugned order dated 6-8-1991 (Annex. 3) had cancelled the sale order dated 20-7-1985 (Annex. R/ 5) and the sale deed dated 30-7-1985 (Annex. R/6) executed in favour of respondent No. 2 by the Municipal Board under Section 80 (2) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), ordered for refund of the sale amount and for taking the possession of the disputed land. Aggrieved by the impugned order dt. 6-8-1991 (Annex. 3), respondent Sag Ram filed a revision petition before the State Govt. under Section 300 of the Act, which was later on dismissed as withdrawn with the observation that no such revision was maintainable. It is the case of the petitioner that during the pendency of the said revision petition, he had procured stay order against the respondent No. 1, who was his political adversary and who had tried to demolish the construction on the disputed plot of land, but due to the intervention of the Collector and the S. D. O. the construction could not be demolished. According to the petitioner, it was only through the impugned order Annex. 3 that he came to know that the Municipal Board, Nagaur had allotted one plot of land to Sag Ram in the year 1976 vide registered patta dated 24-1-1976 (Annex. 4) but since some other person was in possession thereof, the disputed land was allotted to Sag Ram in the year 1985 and that since the size of the disputed plot of land was larger than the earlier allotted plot of land, the Municipal Board had also charged extra price of land. According to the petitioner, the sale of plot of land vide patta Annex. 4 in favour of Sag Ram was complete. However, at the instance of respondent No. 1, proceedings before the Collector were initiated under Section 80 (2) of the Act and it was alleged that the allotment of the disputed plot of land in favour of Sag Ram was illegal and without jurisdiction. The case of the petitioner is that since the subsequent allotment of the disputed plot of land in favour of Sag Ram was made in the year 1985 and that transaction was complete, the Collector had no jurisdiction under Section 80 (2) of the Act to set aside the completed sale of the disputed land and that by virtue of sale deed Annex. 1, a civil right has also been created in his (petitioners) favour. Since the Collector did not afford any opportunity of hearing to him and cancelled the subsequent allotment order dated 20-7-1985 as also the sale letter dt. 30-7-1985 (Annex. R/6) executed by the Municipal Board in favour of Sag Ram, there was violation of the principles of natural justice therefore, impugned order dated 6-8-1991 Annex. 3 is without jurisdiction, which deserves to be quashed. ( 3 ) THE Municipal Board (respondent No. 3) in its Counter has vehemently contested this writ petition and taken certain preliminary objections. Firstly, the petitioner has deliberately suppressed the material facts and not come with clean hands. Secondly, the petitioner has no legal right in his favour to enforce because the alleged subsequent allotment of the disputed land made in favour of respondent Sag Ram vide patta dated 20-7-1985 Annex. R/6 was patently illegal and against the specific provisions of the Act and the Rajasthan Municipalities (Disposal of Urban Land) Rules, 1974 (in short "the Rules of 1974j. R/6 was patently illegal and against the specific provisions of the Act and the Rajasthan Municipalities (Disposal of Urban Land) Rules, 1974 (in short "the Rules of 1974j. Thirdly, the petitioners revision petition filed under Section 300 of the Act challenging the impugned order Annex. 3 was pending before the State Government at the time of filing of this writ petition. Therefore, the writ petition was not maintainable. On merits, it has been pleaded that way back in the year 1976, the Govt. of Rajasthan through several Municipal Councils/ Boards including Municipal Board, Nagaur had made certain schemes for the benefit of low income group people, members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and landless persons for allotment of residential plots at concessional rates within municipal areas under R. 17 of the Rules of 1974. That respondent Sag Ram had submitted an application dated 15-1-1976 Annex. R/ 1 to the Municipal Board, Nagaur, wherein he alleged that his annual income was Rs. 1500. 00 only and prayed that a plot of land in the scheme outside Kumhari Gate, Nagaur be allotted to him. He had also submitted another application Annex. R/2 specifying the said Scheme Thereupon after due consideration, he was allotted plot No. 9 measuring 18 ft. x 36 ft. (equivalent to 72 square yards) situated outside Kumhari Gate, Nagaur for an amount of Rs. 180. 00 vide registered patta dated 25-1-1976 Annex. 4 on the terms and conditions mentioned therein. One of those conditions was that the allottee shall not have any right to transfer the allotted residential plot. Another condition was that the allottee shall have to construct the house or erect thatchet thereon within two years of the allotment. The possession of the said plot of land was also handed over to Sag Ram. It has been alleged that Sag Ram did not put any construction within the stipulated period. Therefore, the Municipal Board, Nagaur sent a notice dated 8-2-1979 Annex. R/3 asking him to make construction on the said land within three months failing which his allotment shall be cancelled. Sag Ram did not file any reply to the said notice. However, as late as on 30-7-1985, he filed an application Annex. Therefore, the Municipal Board, Nagaur sent a notice dated 8-2-1979 Annex. R/3 asking him to make construction on the said land within three months failing which his allotment shall be cancelled. Sag Ram did not file any reply to the said notice. However, as late as on 30-7-1985, he filed an application Annex. R/4 before the Chairman, Municipal Board, Nagaur alleging that since the plot No. 9 allotted in his favour was in unauthorised possession of other person, he could not get the possession thereof and prayed that instead of plot No. 9, he may be allotted disputed plot of land situated in sainik Basti, nagaur, which was lying vacant. He further mentioned therein that since the disputed plot of land is bigger in size, he was also prepared to deposit the price of the excess land. Thereafter, he filed another application dated 20-7-1985 (Annex. R/ 5) before the then Chairman, Municipal Board, who passed an order on the said application that if the original plot of land was not available then in lieu of that, another plot of land may be allotted in favour of Sag Ram. It is is alleged that the said order was clearly against the provisions of the Act and the Rules of 1974. The then Chairman, Municipal Board, Nagaur also issued, subsequent order of allotment dated 30-7-1985 Annex. R/6 in favour of respondent Sag Ram pertaining to the disputed plot of land measuring 311 1/9 square yard for an amount of Rs. 2400. 00 in exchange of the previously allotted plot No. 9. It is the case of the Municipal Board that allotment order Annex. R/6 was also issued in flagrant violation of the provisions of the Act and the Rules of 1974. Moreover, Annex. R/6 was not registered. Therefore, the said subsequent allotment order dated 20-7-1986 and 30-7-1986 Annex. R/6 are not binding on the Municipal Board being patently illegal and void. It is further the case of Municipal Board that the respondent No. 1 challenged the said allotment orders by filing revision petition under Section 80 (2) of the Act before the Collector, Nagaur, wherein respondents Sag Ram and Municipal Board were also impleaded as non-petitioners. R/6 are not binding on the Municipal Board being patently illegal and void. It is further the case of Municipal Board that the respondent No. 1 challenged the said allotment orders by filing revision petition under Section 80 (2) of the Act before the Collector, Nagaur, wherein respondents Sag Ram and Municipal Board were also impleaded as non-petitioners. It is the case of the Municipal Board that the petitioner, who was also a Municipal Councillor, was fully knowing about the said revision petition, that in fact Sag Ram was a fictitious person; that moreover Sag Ram had no legal right to transfer/ sell the disputed plot of land as per terms and conditions of the allotment order Anex. R/ 6 and, therefore, the alleged sale deed dated 30-4-1991 Annex. I neither gives any title or right in favour of the petitioner nor the same is binding on it, that the Collector after due enquiry and hearing the parties by his impugned order dated 6-8-1991 has held that the impugned subsequent allotment order in respect of the disputed plot of land was against the provisions of the Act and the Rules of 1974 and that he accordingly exercising the powers of the State Govt. under Section 80 (2) of the Act has legally cancelled the order dated 20-7-1985 Annex. R/ 5 as well as the allotment order dated 30-7-1985 Annex. R/6. It has also been pleaded on behalf of the Municipal Board that a notice Annex. R/7 was issued against Sag Ram and that same was also published in the newspaper and that in compliance of the order dated 4-9-1991 Annex. R/8 issued by the Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Nagaur, the Sanitary Inspector had demolished the construction raised on the disputed plot of land and taken over the physical possession of the plot and submitted his compliance report dated 7-9-1991 (Annex. 10 ). It has also been pleaded that the petitioner filed a revision petition before the State Govt. under Section 300 of the Act, which was legally not maintainable and that under the garb of the stay order, he has again illegally taken possession of the disputed plot of land. Thus, the petitioner has deliberately suppressed material facts and has not come with clean hands and as such he is not entitled to any relief. under Section 300 of the Act, which was legally not maintainable and that under the garb of the stay order, he has again illegally taken possession of the disputed plot of land. Thus, the petitioner has deliberately suppressed material facts and has not come with clean hands and as such he is not entitled to any relief. ( 4 ) RESPONDENT No. 1 in his reply has also taken similar averments and categorically denied that he is a political adversary of the petitioner or has any animosity with him. ( 5 ) NO reply has been filed on behalf of respondents Nos. 2, 4 and 5. ( 6 ) I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the relevant record. ( 7 ) THE main contention of Mr. S. N. Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the subsequent allotment of the disputed plot of land vide allotment order dated 30-7-1985 Annex. R/ 6 was a completed transaction of sale. It was not a proposal to lease or sell or transfer made by or on behalf of the Municipal Board. Therefore, the provisions of Section 80 (2) did not authorise the Collector to cancel the sale order dated 20-7-1985 and the allotment order dt. 30-7-1985 Annex. R/6. Hence the impugned order Annex. 3 is without jurisdiction. His second limb of argument is that admittedly the petitioner, who has purchased the disputed plot of land from Sag Ram vide sale deed Annex. I was neither given a notice nor afforded any reasonable opportunity of hearing and, therefore, the impugned order dated 6-8-91 Annex. 3 offends the settled principle of natural justice namely audi alteram partem. Hence the impugned order Annex. 3 be quashed and respondents be restrained from interfering in the possession of the petitioner. ( 8 ) ON the other hand Mr. D. S. Shishodia, learned Senior Advocate for respondent No. 1 and Mr. Blum Arora, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 vehemently asserted that the subsequent allotment order dated 30-7-85 Annex. R/6 is not registered nor it tantamounts to a completed sale. Moreover, the order dated 20-7-85 and the subsequent allotment order dated 30-7-85 Annex. R/ 6 have been issued in flagrant violation of the mandatory provisions of the Act and the Rules of 1974. Thus, there was no valid lease, sale or transfer. Hence, order dated 20-7-85 and Annex. R/6 is not registered nor it tantamounts to a completed sale. Moreover, the order dated 20-7-85 and the subsequent allotment order dated 30-7-85 Annex. R/ 6 have been issued in flagrant violation of the mandatory provisions of the Act and the Rules of 1974. Thus, there was no valid lease, sale or transfer. Hence, order dated 20-7-85 and Annex. R/6 were not binding on the Municipal Board being without jurisdiction and void. In such circumstances, the Collector, who is an officer authorised by the State Government to exercise its powers under S. 80 (2) of the Act, has the jurisdiction to cancel the said sale order dated 20-7-85 and allotment order dated 30-7-85 Annex. R/ 6. They have reiterated that the petitioner has deliberately suppressed material facts in his writ petition and not come with clean hands, therefore, he is not entitled to any relief under the extraordinary powers of the Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. According to them, since Sag Ram had no legal right to sell the disputed plot of land keeping in view the terms and conditions of the allotment order, the sale deed dated 30-4-91 Annex. 1 does not confer any right, title or interest in favour of the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner has no legal right to enforce and, therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable. According to them, there is no provision for exchange of plot of land under the Rules of 1974, that as per R. 24, individual or stray plots can only be disposed of by public auction in accordance with the procedure laid down in R. 14 of the Rules of 1974. Therefore, the subsequent allotment order dated 30-7-85 Annex. 6 is patently illegal and ab initio void and the same has been rightly cancelled by the Collector. They have submitted that even if it is assumed that the provisions of S. 80 (2) of the Act did not apply in this case, still then allowing this writ petition would result in restoring an illegal and void order and, therefore, this Court should refuse to interfere with the impugned order dated 1-6-89 Annex. 3. They have placed reliance on Jagan Singh v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan, AIR 1980 Raj 1 (FB) and Mohammad Swalleh v. Third Addl. District Judge, Meerut, (1988) 1 SCC 40 ( AIR 1988 SC 94 ). 3. They have placed reliance on Jagan Singh v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan, AIR 1980 Raj 1 (FB) and Mohammad Swalleh v. Third Addl. District Judge, Meerut, (1988) 1 SCC 40 ( AIR 1988 SC 94 ). ( 9 ) I have given my earnest and careful consideration to the rival contentions raised before me. ( 10 ) FROM a bare perusal of the pleading and documents filed by the parties, it stands firmly established that respondent Sag Ram filed an application dated 15-1-76 Annex. R/ 1 and another application Annex. R/ 2 alleging that he belonged to low income group strata of the society and that his income was Rs. 1500. 00 per annum only and prayed for allotment of a residential plot at concessional rates situated in Scheme No. 3 viz. Outside Kumhari Gate, Nagaur. Accordingly, the Administrator, Municipal Board, Nagaur allotted residential plot No. 9 measuring 18 ft. x 36 ft. (equivalent to 72 square yards) in his favour for an amount of Rs. 180. 00 on the prescribed rate under R. 17 of Rules of 1974, executed a registered patta dated 24-1-76 Annex. 4 and also handed over the physical possession of the said plot of land. It is also not in dispute that Sag Ram did not construct any house nor erect any thatchet on the said plot of land within two years from the date of allotment and thus violated the terms and conditions of the patta Annex. 4 to the effect that the allottee shall not have any right to transfer or sell the allotted plot of land. The Municipal Board issued a notice dated 8-2-79 (Annex. R/ 3) to Sag Ram to comply with the aforementioned terms and conditions and to put construction on the allotted plot of land failing which his allotment shall be cancelled. It appears that Sag Ram did not put any construction and remained silent. He also did not claim that possession of the said plot of land was not given to him. Thereafter, after lapse of more than six years, he submitted application dated 3-7-85 Annex. It appears that Sag Ram did not put any construction and remained silent. He also did not claim that possession of the said plot of land was not given to him. Thereafter, after lapse of more than six years, he submitted application dated 3-7-85 Annex. R/4 before the Chairman Municipal Board Nagaur, alleging that since some other person had unauthorisedly encroached upon the allotted plot No. 9, he was not given possession thereof and that now in exchange of the said plot of land, he should be allowed the disputed plot of land having an area of 311 1/9 square yards. Sag Ram belonged to low income group. He was allotted plot No. 9, having an area of 72 square yards only. The disputed plot of land was also not included in the four schemes sanctioned by the Municipal Board for allotment of residential plots of land to the members of the low income group as is evident from Annex. R/ 2. Moreover, a person belonging to the low income group could not be allotted a plot exceeding an area of 100 square yards under R. 17 (4) r/w Annex. C of the Rules of 1974. Apart from this, there is no provision in the Rules of 1974 for exchange of plot of land. Besides this, R. 24 of the Rules of 1974 clearly lays down that individual or stray plots, lying vacant, shall be disposed of by public auction in accordance with the procedure laid down in R. 14. Admittedly, the disputed plot of land was subsequently allotted by the then Chairman, Municipal Board in favour of Sag Ram by his order dated 20-7-85 made on Annex. R/ 5 and allotment letter dated 30-7-85 Annex. R/ 6 without any public auction and that too at a concessional rate. Therefore, the order dated 20-7-85 on Annex. R/ 5 as well as the allotment letter dated 30-7-85 Annex. R/ 6 have been made in clear contravention and flagrant violation of the mandatory provisions of the Rules of 1974. ( 11 ) ADMITTEDLY, the allotment letter cum patta dated 30-7-85 Annex. R/6 is not registered and as such no sale, lease or transfer in respect of the disputed plot was complete. ( 12 ) SECTION 80 of the Act contains provisions relating to the transfer of the property and contracts. Its Cl. ( 11 ) ADMITTEDLY, the allotment letter cum patta dated 30-7-85 Annex. R/6 is not registered and as such no sale, lease or transfer in respect of the disputed plot was complete. ( 12 ) SECTION 80 of the Act contains provisions relating to the transfer of the property and contracts. Its Cl. (1) lays down that every board shall be competent, subject to the prescribed restrictions and conditions to lease, or otherwise transfer any movable or immovable property belonging to it, including municipal and as also any Government land and so far as is not inconsistent with the provisions and purposes of this Act and the rules made thereunder, to enter into and perform all such contracts as it may consider necessary or expedient in order to carry into effect the said provisions and the purposes. Then there is a proviso to Cl. (1), which specifically says that no such lease, sale, transfer and contracts shall be binding on a board unless it is in conformity with the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder. R. 26 of the Rules of 1974 requires that for every allotment or disposal by auction, a document evidencing the same shall be prepared in the manner prescribed in appropriate form, which shall be signed for and on behalf of Governor of the State by the Administrator/ Chairman and Executive Officer of the Board and shall be duly stamped and registered at the expense of the allottee or the purchaser. ( 13 ) IN the case in hand, the petitioner has simply filed a photostat copy of registered patta dated 24-1-76 Annex. 4 pertaining to plot No. 9, which was initially allotted in favour of Sag Ram. He has deliberately not filed the allotment order dated 30-7-85 Annex. R/6 or any registered patta whereby the disputed plot of land was allotted and sold/leased or transferred in favour of Sag Ram. He has thus deliberately suppressed material facts and not filed this material document. However, unregistered allotment order dated 30-7-85 (Annex. R/6 = Annex. R/ 1) has been filed by the respondents Nos. 3 and 1. A bare perusal thereof reveals that no sale deed/lease deed was executed on behalf of the Municipal Board in favour of Sag Ram but only allotment order dated 20-7-85 on the application Annex. R/ 5 and order for handing over possession were passed. The allotment order Annex. R/ 1) has been filed by the respondents Nos. 3 and 1. A bare perusal thereof reveals that no sale deed/lease deed was executed on behalf of the Municipal Board in favour of Sag Ram but only allotment order dated 20-7-85 on the application Annex. R/ 5 and order for handing over possession were passed. The allotment order Annex. R/6 (Annex. R. 1 / 1) is neither stamped nor registered. Therefore, by this document, neither there was a completed sale nor the said document of the disputed land constitutes a valid sale in favour of Sag Ram in view of the specific provisions of R. 26 of the Rules of 1974. It may also be mentioned here that R. 17 (6) specifically lays down that an allottee of plot at concessional rate shall not transfer the plot before the expiry of ten years from the date of allotment. It further provides that if any person has sold his plot in contravention of the provisions of the Rules of 1974, by whatever method, the plot shall stand forfeited to the Board without any liability for compensation. ( 14 ) IN the instant case, firstly Sag Ram could not have been allotted the disputed plot of land, which was much bigger in - area exceeding 100 square yards at concessional rate. Secondly, such a plot could have only been sold by public auction. Thirdly, the patta D/- 30-7-85 Annex. R/ 6 was neither duly stamped nor registered. Therefore, the order for allotment D/-20-7-85 and subsequent patta D/- 30-7-85 Annex. R/ 6 of the disputed plot of land in favour of Sag Ram were per se illegal, against the mandatory provisions of the Rules of 1974 and void. Apart from it, Sag Ram was legally not entitled to transfer/ sell the disputed plot of land in favour of the petitioner within ten years of the date of the allotment. In such circumstances, not an iota of doubt lurks into my mind to hold that the alleged registered sale deed dated 30-4-91 Annex. 1, which was executed by Sag Ram, that too during the pendency of the revision petition No. 7/89 before the Collector, Nagaur, was also unauthorised, illegal and against the terms and conditions of the allotment as well as the provisions of Rules of 1974. ( 15 ) IN Dr. 1, which was executed by Sag Ram, that too during the pendency of the revision petition No. 7/89 before the Collector, Nagaur, was also unauthorised, illegal and against the terms and conditions of the allotment as well as the provisions of Rules of 1974. ( 15 ) IN Dr. H. S. Rikhy v. The New Delhi Municipal Committee, AIR 1962 SC 554 while interpreting the provisions of Ss. 18 and 47 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911, whose provisions are similar to the provisions of S. 80 of the Act, the Apex Court has held that the legal significance of the expression "shall not be binding on the Committee" in S. 47 is that the contract, the power to enter which is given by S. 18, shall not be enforceable against the Municipal Committee and that it is clear that an agreement not enforceable in law is void. It was further held that provisions of S. 47 are essential ingredients of the powers contained in S. 18 of the Act and hence the argument that a contract which has not been executed as required by S. 47 may not be binding on the Municipal Committee but it was not void, was not correct. In other words, the Honble Supreme Court has held that any contract in contravention of the provisions of the law, which is not enforceable in law, is void. In that case, the Honble Supreme Court also held that Municipal Committee was not estopped by its conduct from challenging the enforceability of the alleged contract because there cannot be any estoppel against Statute. ( 16 ) IN such circumstances, it is abundantly that the subsequent allotment of the disputed plot of land vide allotment letter dated 30-7-85 Annex. R/ 6 (Annex. R. 1 / 1) in favour of Sag Ram was not a concluded contract. On the other hand, it was in clear contravention of the provisions of the Rules of 1974 and the Act. Hence, it was also not binding on the Municipal Board under S. 80 (1) of the Act. ( 17 ) THE State Govt. vide its Notification No. F. 3 (2) (17)LSG/74 dated 27-2-1975 in exercise of powers conferred by S. 209 (1) of the Act has authorised the Collector of each district within his jurisdiction in all matters covered by sub-s. (2) of S. 80 of the Act. ( 17 ) THE State Govt. vide its Notification No. F. 3 (2) (17)LSG/74 dated 27-2-1975 in exercise of powers conferred by S. 209 (1) of the Act has authorised the Collector of each district within his jurisdiction in all matters covered by sub-s. (2) of S. 80 of the Act. Hence, the Collector also had the competence and jurisdiction to conduct necessary enquiry and to modify, cancel or rescind such order of allotment or contract, lease, sale or transfer, which was not concluded and to order refund of the amount deposited by Sag Ram under S. 80 (2) (b) of the Act. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the impugned order D/- 6-8-91 (Annex. 3) passed by the Collector, Nagaur is not without jurisdiction. On the other hand, it is just and legal, which warrants no interference. Hence the first contention of Shri S. N. Sharma is clearly misconceived and the same stands aborted. ( 18 ) THE disputed plot of land could not be allotted to Sag Ram. Moreover, he had no legal right to sell or transfer the disputed plot of land within ten years of the alleged date of the allotment i. e. 30-7-85. In such circumstances, petitioner also has no valid and legal right to enforce. ( 19 ) IN Calcutta Gas Company Ltd. v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1962 SC 1044 , it has been held that it is implicit in the exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Court under Art. 226 that the relief asked for must be one to enforce a legal right. The existence of the right is the foundation of the exercise of jurisdiction of the High Court under Art. 226. Therefore, on this ground also, this writ petition is not maintainable. ( 20 ) FROM the record, it stands firmly established that the respondent Ganga Singh had filed Revision Petition No. 7/89 under S. 80 (2) of the Act against Sag Ram and the Municipal Board challenging the order of allotment D/ - 20-7-85 and the allotment letter D/-30-7-85 Annex. R. /6, wherein Sag Ram was duly represented by an Advocate and a reasonable opportunity of hearing was also given to him. During the pendency of the said revision petition, it apepars that Sag Ram executed registered sale deed D/-30-4-91 Annex. I in favour of the petitioner. R. /6, wherein Sag Ram was duly represented by an Advocate and a reasonable opportunity of hearing was also given to him. During the pendency of the said revision petition, it apepars that Sag Ram executed registered sale deed D/-30-4-91 Annex. I in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner at the most stepped into the shoes of Sag Ram, being his assignee. This is also clearly borne out that neither Sag Ram brought this fact to the notice of the Collector, Nagaur nor the petitioner filed any application for his impleadment as a party in the revision petition. Since the alleged sale deed D/-30-4-91 Annex. I was executed during the pendency of the said revision petition, it was not at all necessary for the Collector to have issued a separate notice to the petitioner or to have afforded him any opportunity of hearing. Hence, there is no force in the contention of Mr. S. N. Sharma that there was a breach of the crystallised principle of natural justice namely audi alteram partem. ( 21 ) THE subsequent allotment order D/- 30-7-85 Annex. R/6 was illegal and against the mandatory provisions of the Rules of 1974. Hence, allowing the writ petitoin would result in restoring the illegal orders passed by the Chairman, Municipal Board. The petitioner has also suppressed material facts and also not come with clean hands. He has miserably failed to show that there has been a failure of justice. ( 22 ) IN Jagan Singhs case (supra), a Full Bench of this Court refused to interfere as there was no failure of justice and was of the view that allowing the writ petition would result in restoring an illegal order. ( 23 ) SIMILARLY, in Mohd. Swallehs case (supra), where despite absence of provisions in the Statute for appeal to the District Judge aginast an erroneous order of the Statutory Authority, the D. J. had entertained such an appeal and set aside the order. The Apex Court affirming the order of the High Court has held that upholding the view taken by the D. J. was justified in the interest of justice, because not doing so would perpetuate illegality. ( 24 ) HENCE for these reasons also, this is not at all a fit case wherein this Court should exercise its equitable and extraordinary jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. ( 24 ) HENCE for these reasons also, this is not at all a fit case wherein this Court should exercise its equitable and extraordinary jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. ( 25 ) NO other point survives for consideration nor was pressed before me. ( 26 ) REFRACTED from any angle, this writ petition is meritless and the same is hereby dismissed. However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to seek his remedy, if any, in the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction in accordance with law. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed