JUDGMENT 1. - The matter comes up for final hearing/disposal in sequence of the order passed by me on 9.8.1994. 2. The petitioner society was established for various charitable objects including building of a Stadium. The State Government allotted a piece of land measuring 9 bighas 1 biswa in front of law courts, Deedwana on 9.11.1960. The said communication is Annex.l. 3. A patta was also issued under the seal and signatures of the Administrator, Municipal Board and permission for raising construction was also given. A civil suit came to be filed against the petitioner and an injunction was issued and thus, the raising of the construction was stayed. The said suit was dismissed on 9.1.1976, thereafter an appeal was filed, which was also dismissed. Since considerable time had been lost in the process, an application was against moved for seeking permission for raising construction and the same was granted on 11.10.1983. Some construction was raised thereafter. The dispute again started with a College. The Collector issued a stay order. The matter remained pending there till 1988. When permission was against applied and was extended by the Director, Local Bodies on 29.7.1992, there were representations again and on an application dated 5.9.1992 the Executive Officer forwarded the matter to the Sports Council vide Annex. 4. The Director, Local Bodies stayed the order dated 29.7.1992 and the petitioner was ordered to appear before him vide Annex. 5. 4. The petitioner appeared before the Director and there he came to know that some wrong report had been made by the Executive Officer and proposals were going on for cancellation of the allotment. 5. Vide the order dated 23.12.1992 the allotment was ordered to be cancelled. The order has been placed as Annex. 6 on record. On representation made by the petitioner the Director Local Bodies inspected the site on 7.9.1993 and vide the order dated 18.9.1993 the State Government withdrew the order dated 23.12.1992 and the petitioner was further granted a time to two years for raising the desired construction and it was stipulated that the Stadium and the Park shall always remain public. This order dated 18.9.1993 is Annex. 8. In sequence of this order the Collector further issued an order to the Tehsildar on 4.12.1993 Annex. 9. The Executive Officer vide order Annex. This order dated 18.9.1993 is Annex. 8. In sequence of this order the Collector further issued an order to the Tehsildar on 4.12.1993 Annex. 9. The Executive Officer vide order Annex. 10 reiterated the order of the Government to raise construction within two years and also directed to comply with the conditions. 6. On 28.2.1994 an order was passed, which was served through the communication dated 5.3.1994 intimating the petitioner that the order dated 18.9.1993 is cancelled and the order passed on 23.12.1992 is restored. The Govt.'s order and the communication have been placed as Annexs.11 and 12 respectively and it is this action, which is under challenge in this petition. 7. In the return on behalf of the State, it is said that the petition is not maintainable. The petitioner has no locus standi. It is also said that many of the members of the Society have died and there is no resolution authorising Bhura Ram to file this petition. It is also said that the petitioner Society has done nothing and extensions had been granted from time to time under political pressures and the purpose of allotment stands frustrated and, therefore, the allotment has been rightly cancelled. It is also said that after cancellation, the State has taken over the possession of the site. The respondents have further stated that the site was allotted for a laudable object and since there has been a breach of the terms and conditions the State Government was well within its right to resume the allotment. 8. In the rejoinder filed by the petitioner the averments contained in the petition have been reiterated. It has been said that vide the resolution dated 5.3.1994 Annex. 13 Bhoma Ram who is the President has been authorised to file this petition and that the State Government, the Collector and the Municipal board have been corresponding with Bhoma Ram as the President of the Society and, thus, the objection raised by the respondents in this respect was baseless. It has been further said in the rejoinder that new members have been inducted and there were 36 life members who have deposited huge amounts and sufficient funds by way of donations have been received and deposited in the Bank Account. It has been further said in the rejoinder that new members have been inducted and there were 36 life members who have deposited huge amounts and sufficient funds by way of donations have been received and deposited in the Bank Account. There are several prominent members of the petitioner Society including Shri Nathu Ram Mirdha, M. P., Shri Ram Niwas Mirdha, Chairman, J.P.C., M. P., Shri Jeth Mal, Ex-M.LA., Shri Harendra Mirdha, sitting M.L.A. and so many other names of important persons are mentioned in the rejoinder. It has been further said that the construction had been raised by the petitioner but due to various factors as stated in the petition itself, the petitioner could not go ahead to complete the project because of the stay orders and the usual delays with the functionaries of the State Government. Regarding possession it has been stated in the rejoinder that the plea is false. The writ petition was filed and listed on 2.13.1994, copy was supplied to the learned counsel for the Municipal Board the same day and when the matter came up for hearing at motion stage before this Court on 25.3.1994 no such objection was raised that the possession had been taken and this Court not only stayed the operation of the order but also stayed the dispossession specifically. It has been reiterated that the petitioner is in actual physical possession of the site. Mutation entry obtained in April, 1994 has been placed as Annex. 16. It is said that the petitioners are making the Stadium, park and the rest house for public purposes and for the development of the games and sports. The allegations regarding grabbing of the land are denied. 9. Mr. D. S. Shishodia, Sr. Advocate, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the order and the communication Anpexs. 11 and 12 respectively are straight away liable to be quashed as being violative of the Principles of Natural Justice, non-application of mind and estoppel. It is urged that no reasons have been given in the impugned order for cancelling the allotment and the impugned order simply says that the order of the Government dated 18.9.1993 is set aside and the order dated 23.12.1992 is restored. It is urged that no reasons have been given in the impugned order for cancelling the allotment and the impugned order simply says that the order of the Government dated 18.9.1993 is set aside and the order dated 23.12.1992 is restored. It may be stated here that the order dated 23.12.1992 has been placed on record as Annex.6 and by virtue of this order the allotment was cancelled and the order dated 18.9.1993 has been placed on record as Annex. 8 whereby the allotment was restored and the petitioner was granted two years' time to complete the project. The order further does not indicate whether any opportunity was provided to the petitioner before the order was handed down, nor the respondents in the reply have denied the averments in the petition in this respect. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent State, Mr. K.N. Joshi, Mr. Kailash Joshi and Mr. R.K. Mehta appearing for the Municipal Board, in their efforts to justify the impugned order have replied that the allotment was rightly cancelled by the Government since the petitioner violated the terms and conditions of the allotment and the stadium has not been built for over 34 years from the date of allotment and that the petitioner Society is defunct. 11. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after scanning the record I am of the considered opinion that the order Annex. 11 has to be quashed. No reasons have been given for cancelling the allotment. Admittedly, no notice or opportunity was afforded to the petitioner before the proposed action. Moreover, the matter had gone to the Government on several occasions and the cancellation made earlier was withdrawn and the allotment restored. So much so the petitioner had even been granted time to go ahead with the construction and for which the petitioner was allowed further extension of two years to complete the project. Nothing has been shown as to what prompted the Government to review its earlier decision and that too without adhering to the basic norms of notice and opportunity. The allotment could not be set aside ex-parte after about 34 years. 12. I further find that most of the time the petitioner was kept engaged in futile litigation and on account of the stay orders restraining the petitioner from raising the construction at the site. The allotment could not be set aside ex-parte after about 34 years. 12. I further find that most of the time the petitioner was kept engaged in futile litigation and on account of the stay orders restraining the petitioner from raising the construction at the site. The allotment was made for a laudable object and a pretty long time has gone by and the complex could not be built for extraneous reasons. I am further satisfied that the Society has a sizable number of members with respectable status. The completion of the building of such a complex was not that difficult a task with these persons carrying status. 13. In the result, the order Annex. 11 cancelling the allotment is set aside, and with it goes the Annex. 12 which is a communication and as a sequence, the allotment made in favour of the petitioner is restored. In the best interest of the Institution and the benefiting public, I direct that the District Collector, Nagaur, the District Education Officer, Nagaur and the District Sports Officer, Nagaur shall be associated by the petitioner for carrying out the objects of the complex and I have no doubt that with the induction of these persons the things would start improving and no hurdles will be created for the petitioner in building and completing the complex. A further period of two years is granted to the petitioner from the date of this order to complete the project. The respondents are further directed not to interfere into the internal affairs of the petitioner Society. The petitioner Society shall not violate the terms and conditions of the allotment and all out efforts be made to achieve the objects for which it has been established. 14. It is expected that the State and its functionaries shall give their fullest cooperation in building the complex and shall not unnecessarily interfere in the control and management of the petitioner over the said complex which is aimed at serving the general public. 15. The petition, thus, stands allowed. No order as to costs. A copy of this order be forthwith sent to the Collector, Nagaur, District Education Officer, Nagaur and District Sports Officer, Nagaur for information and compliance.Petition allowed. *******