Honble PALLI, J. – This petition is being disposed of finally at this stage with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. (2). In the year 1981, the petitioner was working as a Platoon Commander in the R.A.C. Btn., Bikaner. (3). An application for allotment of a residential plot was made through proper channel to the Urban Improvement Trust, Bikaner, respondent No.2. The said application was recommended and a plot in the reserved category meant for paramilitary forces was allotted in Sector 7, Jai Narain Vyas Nagar, Bikaner vide the allotment dated 26.10.1983 (Annex.4). The petitioner deposited Rs. 16,805/- on 20.1.1984 and copy of the challan evidencing this fact has been placed as Annex. 5. Possession of the site was taken by the petitioner on 2.8.1994. (4). The grievance here in this writ petition is against the order dated 31.3.1995 (Annex.8) whereby the site allotted to the petitioner way back in the year 1983 has been cancelled and the site has further been ordered to be auctioned vide the advertisement published in Rajasthan Patrika Annex.9. (5). The only ground that is stressed on behalf of the petitioner is that no notice or opportunity was ever afforded to the petitioner before taking the decision of cancellation of the site and further ordering its auction. (6). In reply Mr. S.L. Jain, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Trust submits that the petitioner had wrongly stated that he belonged to armed forces and got the allotment made on misrepresentation in the reserved category. This is not disputed that the application for the purposes of allotment was moved through proper channel and was recommended by the Commandant and it was thereafter that the allotment followed and the possession was delivered. (7). Mr. Jain further submits that it was due to mis-statement of facts that the Trust approved the allotment of a residential site to the petitioner. It is further said that the petition raises disputed questions of facts which cannot be entertained in writ jurisdiction. It is said that the petitioner does not belong to armed or para-military forces. An enquiry is said to have been held by the Additional Superintendent of Police Rajasthan Investigating Bureau and it was thereafter that the site was rightly ordered to be cancelled. (8). It is said that the petitioner does not belong to armed or para-military forces. An enquiry is said to have been held by the Additional Superintendent of Police Rajasthan Investigating Bureau and it was thereafter that the site was rightly ordered to be cancelled. (8). In respect of the notice and opportunity, the respondents towards the end of para 4 of the reply have said that allotment was rightly cancelled and there is no need for the issuance of notice before cancellation. (9). After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after examining the pleadings and other relevant material placed on the record I find that the respondents have acted in haste. Admittedly the site was allotted to the petitioner in the reserved category way back in the year 1983. The application had been moved through proper channel and was duly recommended by the Commandant and processed by the respondent Trust. The respondent Trust was under a bouden duty to examine the application and its contents in order to find out the eligibility of the petitioner. The statutory authorities have been time and again told by this Court that while dealing with the rights of the citizens in respect of their right, title and interest in the property, the matter should always be examined objectively and keeping in view the basic norms of equity and justice. Admittedly no notice or opportunity was ever provided to the petitioner before taking such a drastic action against the petitioner which in my view amounts to deprivation of property to a citizen without even hearing or opportunity. This is totally against all norms of law and procedure. Assuming the petitioner secured allotment by misrepresentation, he was at least entitled to a notice accompanied by proper opportunity and hearing. The respondents have to blame themselves for their inaction during all this time and responsibility should have been fastened on the official who processed the allotment file and approval was granted. It was not open for the respondents to hold some enquiry at the back of the petitioner and reach an ex parte decision resulting in cancellation of the allotment. (10). For the reasons recorded above, this petition deserves to be allowed. The impugned order dated 31.3.1995 (Annex. 8) cancelling the site and the notice regarding auction Annex.9 are hereby quashed. It was not open for the respondents to hold some enquiry at the back of the petitioner and reach an ex parte decision resulting in cancellation of the allotment. (10). For the reasons recorded above, this petition deserves to be allowed. The impugned order dated 31.3.1995 (Annex. 8) cancelling the site and the notice regarding auction Annex.9 are hereby quashed. This would not, however, debar the respondent Trust from initiating proceedings against the petitioner for the cancellation of the site if in its wisdom it still thinks to initiate proceedings against the petitioner for the cancellation of the site and in that situation the respondents shall proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law and the rules on the subject keeping in view the observations made hereinabove in the order. This petition is allowed with costs which are quantified at Rs. 2,000/-.