JUDGMENT This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India arises out of the following facts: The petitioner is an Assistant Engineer in the Municipal Council Morena. According to him, a letter of allotment with regard to a vacant piece of land/plot was issued in his favour. He further states that he deposited the entire amount and the possession of the site was also given to him, He further states that when he applied for sanction for raising a building then not only his building application was declined but the allotment was also cancelled. In this regard, an order was passed on 12th of December 1990. The formal decision was communicated to the petitioner in 1993 copy whereof is Annex. P/13. The case of the petitioner is that in Annexure P/15 the only reason which has been given for cancellation of the allotment is that he is not a permanent employee and his status is that of a temporary employee. As such, allotment could not be made to him. The Municipal Council has filed its reply. According to it, the allotment made in favour of the petitioner is void ab initio because : (i) the land could not be granted without prior permission of the Collector; (ii) the petitioner was an employee of the municipal council and he manipulated an order in his favour; (iii) in fact, there is no allotment order in existence and as a matter of fact, vide order Annexure R/1, the petitioner was asked to produce the order of allotment which has not been produced till today. (iv) the petitioner got the land evaluated at Rs. 18,000/- whereas this is a land which is meant for shopping complex and its market value is around Rs. 100s.ft. It may be seen that the fact that there is some allotment made in favour of the petitioner is apparent from the order by which the lease in question was cancelled. The fact that possession was also delivered of the land is also apparent from Annex. P/13. Therefore, some right did accrue in favour of the petitioner. The contention of the petitioner is that he was not given proper opportunity of hearing before the impugned order of cancellation. The fact that possession was also delivered of the land is also apparent from Annex. P/13. Therefore, some right did accrue in favour of the petitioner. The contention of the petitioner is that he was not given proper opportunity of hearing before the impugned order of cancellation. As the petitioner was not given an opportunity of hearing, a direction is given to the respondents No. 1 to reconsider the matter and pass a fresh order in the matter after affording a personal hearing opportunity to the petitioner. It would not be necessary to issue any further show cause notice because the reasons which led to the cancellation have been made known to him The fresh order would be passed by the respondent No. 1. The petitioner may show cause on or before 27th of March, 1995. The petitioner be permitted to file documents in support of his case, if he so desires. The respondents No. 1 would pass the order in accordance with the law within a period of two months. This period of two months would begin from the date the copy of this order and a copy of the petition along with its annexures is made available to the petitioner. This petition is disposed of.