JUDGMENT M. SRINIVASAN, C.J.—There is no merit whatever in this writ petition, in which the order of the Financial Commissioner made on 5-2-1994 upholding of the cancellation of the allotment made ot the petitioner-Society earlier is challenged. The petitioners applied under the provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Nautor Land Rules, 1968 for allotment of land, but the Rules will not apply to the land in question. An allotment order was passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur on 11 -4-1991. A perusal of the order shows that the Deputy Commissioner made an allotment under the Rules for the allotment of plots in the new Bilaspur township. He has expressly referred to in the order, Rules 11 to 16 and 2-C and pointed out that the petitioners should abide by the said Rules. But, unfortunately, the Deputy Commissioner has over-looked Rule 17 which is very clear in its terms. The said Rule reads as follows : "Allotment of plot/plots to persons other than oustees, may be made only in respect of such plot/plots as are left unbuilt to the oustees, on the payment of full development charges." 2. The order passed by the Deputy Commissioner was later cancelled by the Governor-in-Council on 18-2-1993. The Deputy Commissioner informed the petitioners of the cancellation of the allotment by communication dated 20-2-1993. The cancellation was on the footing that Rule 17 could not be invoked by the Deputy Commissioner, as there were as many as 44 oustees, who had not been allotted lands. The question of allotting land to the non- oustees would arise only after all the oustees have been allotted plots. Rule 17 can be invoked by the parties or the officials only if all the oustees have been allotted land and the land remains un-allotted. 3. Aggrieved by the order of cancellation, the petitioners filed a Civil Writ Petition No. 187 of 1993 in this Court challenging the same. By judgment dated 24-8-1993, this Court quashed the order of cancellation on the ground that the principles of natural justice had been violated inasmuch as the petitioners were not given an opportunity before the order of cancellation was made. The Court issued a direction to the respondents that if they wanted to take action against the petitioners, they may do so only in accordance with law and after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioners. The Court issued a direction to the respondents that if they wanted to take action against the petitioners, they may do so only in accordance with law and after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioners. It was also observed that in case, the decision if any, taken by the respondents is adverse, the petitioners would be at liberty to challenge the said decision on all grounds available in law including the one taken in the said writ petition. Thereafter, notices were issued to the petitioners and the matter was heard by the Financial Commissioner. He passed an order on 5-2-1994 upholding the cancellation of the allotment made earlier. The Financial Commissioner has pointed out that under Rule 17, question of allotment of land to non-oustees would arise only if all the oustees had been allotted land. As a fact, the Financial Commissioner has pointed out that 44 oustees remained unallotted at the time of the order made in favour of the petitioners and, therefore, the said order was not valid. 4. In this writ petition, it is contended in the first instance that the allotment was made to the petitioners under the provisions of the Government Grants Act, 1895 and the Financial Commissioner has over-looked the same. There is no merit in this contention in view of the admitted fact that the application for allotment was made by the petitioners only under the Himachal Pradesh Nautor Land Rules, but the allotment was made by the Deputy Commissioner under the provisions of the Rules for allotment of land under the New Bilaspur Township. Hence, the provision of the Government Grants Act will not help the petitioners herein. 5. It is next contended that the Government had taken a different stand in a suit filed by certain oustees challenging the allotment in favour of the petitioners herein. According to learned counsel, in the written statement filed in the suit, the Government had taken a stand that the oustees were not entitled to get allotment in a particular sector and most of them had already got allotment. According to learned counsel, in view of the said written statement, the allotment in favour of the petitioners could not be cancelled. We are unable to accept this contention. According to learned counsel, in view of the said written statement, the allotment in favour of the petitioners could not be cancelled. We are unable to accept this contention. It is not in dispute that when the cancellation order was passed by the Government, the said suit was withdrawn by the oustees, who had filed the same. The mere fact that the written statement was filed in support of the allotment order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, it will not prevent the Government from pointing out that the allotment was itself against the Rules and was not valid. In any event, the Court is not bound by the stand taken by the Government in the written statement. The question has to be decided on the basis of the Rules in force. We have now seen that Rule 17 provides for allotment to non-oustees only after all oustees have been allotted land. Thus, the initial allotment in favour of the petitioners was itself null and void as it was against the Rules. 6. The next contention raised by the petitioners is that there were 44 oustees, who remained unallotted at the time of the allotment order made in favour of the petitioners, but subsequently 40 of them had been allotted plots in the other sectors. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, only 4 of them remained and even those oustees have since been allotted plots and, therefore, as at present there is no oustee, who has not been allotted land under the relevant Rules. In this connection, reliance is placed upon paragraph 10(b) of the reply filed by the State Government and also paragraph 10(b) of the sur-rejoinder filed by them. A perusal of the reply as well as sur-rejoinder does not make out a case in support of the petitioners. The statement in paragraph 10(b) merely says that out of 44 left out oustees, 40 had been allotted plots and the remaining 4 are yet to be allotted plots. It does not say that they have been allotted land in other Sectors or in other places. The question of applicability of Rule 17 does notdepend upon any particular sector, but it relates to the entire township of Bilaspur. Under the Rules, the allotment can be made to non- oustees only if all oustees have been allotted the land. It does not say that they have been allotted land in other Sectors or in other places. The question of applicability of Rule 17 does notdepend upon any particular sector, but it relates to the entire township of Bilaspur. Under the Rules, the allotment can be made to non- oustees only if all oustees have been allotted the land. Only in such event, the petitioners can seek the allotment and that is a matter, which has to be decided only when the authorities find that all oustees have already been allotted land. 7. Another contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that other persons, who are not outstees have been allotted land in the township, but their allotments are not cancelled. There is no such factual allegation in the petition. The only allegation found in paragraph 3 is the STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH at there was no objection by the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Bilaspur. That will not cantamount to allotment. Even assuming that there is such| an allotment to any other person, against the Rules, it will be only illegal. There cannot be any equality in illegality. If such allotments are challenged by persons concerned that can be considered by the Court. The petitioners cannot take advantage of such illegal allotment for their benefit. 8. The next contention urged is that there is a lease deed in favour of the petitioners, which is a concluded contract and so long as it is in existence, there cannot be a cancellation of the allotment. There is no merit whatever in this contention. The lease deed itself is based upon illegal allotment order. But for the allotment order, there could not have been a lease. Once it is found that the order of allotment is illegal and against the rules and null and void, the lease cannot be sustained and the lease also becomes void abinitio. 9. Thus, all the contentions of the petitioners fail. This petition is without any merit and is dismissed with costs. Counsel fee Rs. 3,000/-. Interim order is vacated. Petition dismissed.