JUDGMENT 1. - This group of matters are disposed of by a common order as the identical question is involved in all these petitions. Reply affidavit is filed in almost all petitions except Writ Petition No. I835 of 1998, Subhash Ram v. State of Rajasthan and Bhera Ram v. Commissioner of Colonisation & Ors. . 2. The petitioners in all these petitions are dis-placed persons from Majan Field Firing Range. They were allotted land in 1986 in village Chhatargarh. They deposited the cost of the land at the rate of Rs. 300/- per bigha. The land allotted to them was of Bhudan Board. Therefore, their allotment was cancelled and it was decided by the Government to give respective land to the petitioners in exchange of previous allotment. On the applications moved by the petitioners, the Commissioner, Colonisation, Bikaner initiated proceedings and the report was received from Tehsildar for the alternative land given to the petitioners in exchange. Though the land were available for the purpose of allotment to the petitioners in exchange, the possession of the same was not given to them. Hence, the petitioners filed separate petitions before this Court. 3. On 20.11.1997, this Court (Public Prosecutor Naolekar, J.) disposed of the petitions by directing the Commissioner of Colonisation, Bikaner to decide the applications of the petitioners for the allotment of land in question within a period of two months from the receipt of that order. The said direction was complied with by the Commissioner of Colonisation. But later on, the Government constituted a committee and placed it before it and thereby the decision has been delayed. By it notification dated 28.8. 1999, land described in the scheduled appended to it, was ordered to he allotted to the petitioners at the price charged at two times of the reserved price of such land. The notification is taken on record in main writ petition No. 1835/98. As per the notification, the allotment orders have been issued. One of the orders is also produced on record by Shri Hemant Choudhary, learned counsel for the respondents. 4. From the above, it clearly appears that an attempt is made by the respondents to circumvent the orders passed by this Court on 20.1 1.1997 in writ petition No. 4114/97 which cannot be permitted. One of the orders is also produced on record by Shri Hemant Choudhary, learned counsel for the respondents. 4. From the above, it clearly appears that an attempt is made by the respondents to circumvent the orders passed by this Court on 20.1 1.1997 in writ petition No. 4114/97 which cannot be permitted. It is highly improper for the State Government to sit tight over the matter after collecting the amount towards the price of the land for almost 12 years and not to allot the land in exchange. Mr. Choudhary at this stage submitted that amount which was charged in 1986 is sought to be adjusted by the subsequent orders of allotment of land. 5. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances and the earlier order dated 20.1 1.1997 passed in writ petition No. 4114/97 all these writ petitions are required to be allowed. 6. Accordingly, all these writ petitions are allowed and the respondents are directed to allot Barani land to all the petitioners as per the report of the Tehsildar at the prevailing rate within three months from today. However, there shall he no order as to costs in all these writ petitions.Petitions allowed. *******