JUDGMENT 1. - Out of these 13 matters learned Standing Counsel Shri A. K. Khatri appears in writ petition No. 364/2000, 365/2000 and 367/ 2000 and Mr. Dinesh Maheshwari appears in writ petition No.51/99 and Mr. C. L. Jain appears in writ petition No. 131/99.ln rest of the matters, though notices are issued, but nobody is appearing, therefore, learned counsel Shri A. K. Khatri is directed to accept notice in writ petition No. 132/99 and 281/2000 and Mr.Sharma is directed to supply copy of writ petition to Mr. Khatri, which he has supplied. In writ petition No. 603/2000, 604/2000, 605/2000 learned counsel Shri Dinesh Maheshwari is directed to accept notice and Mr.Sharma is directed to supply copy of petition to Mr. Maheshwari, which he has applied. In writ petition No. 1070/2000,1075/2000 and 229/2000 Mr. G. L Jain is directed to accept notice and Mr. Tiwari and Mr.Sharma are directed to supply copy of writ petition to Mr. Jain, which they have applied. 2. At the request and by the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, all these petitions are disposed of by this common order as the common question of law is involved in all these petitions, though notifications are issued on different dates and the allotment orders of the land in question, the date of allotment and the amount of instalment are different. 3. I would like to narrate facts of S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 364/2000 filed by petitioner Smt. Meera W/o Aaiden Sunar, which are as under : 4. (1) On 22-2-1995, Deputy Commissioner Colonisation issued public notification under Rule 13A of the Rajasthan Colonisation (Allotment and Sale of Govt. land in Indira Gandhi Canal Colony Area) Rules, 1975 (for short the 'Rules') (similar notification dated 4-2-1995 was issued in writ petition No. 51/99, 131/99 and 132/99 filed by Vikram Singh, Sodhay Singh and Smt. Kailash Kanwar respectively). Under the terms and conditions of the notification the allottees were required to pay 35% of the total amount at the time of allotment and rest of the amount was to be paid in three years instalment, but if the applicants are landless villagers and the lands are allotted to them then they were required to make payment in ten equal yearly instalments. (2) It is not in dispute that all the petitioners are landless villagers and they were allotted land in question on the basis of ten equal yearly instalments. Smt. Meera was allotted land for 2,14,254/- in chak No. B,AWD 5/56 by an order dated 28-6-96 passed by Deputy Commissioner Colonisation. (3) Smt. Meera deposited first instalment vide challan No. 73 dated 18-10-1995/25-10-1995 which was 10% of the total amount of 2,14,254/-. Second instalment was deposited by her vide challan No. 565 dated 26-12-1996. Ill instalment was deposited by her vide challan No. 828 dated 30-12-1997. IV instalment was also deposited by the petitioner vide challan No. 106 dated 9-2-99. (4) Suprisingly, all of a sudden after passing the allotment order in June, 1996 and after a period of more than three years a notice dated 15-9-1999 came to be issued by the respondent-Tehsildar, Colonisation calling upon the petitioner to deposit the entire balance amount of Rs. 78561/- within a period of 15 days failing which the proceedings will be initiated for cancellation of her allotment of land. (5) Before approaching this Court she filed a reply to the notice dated 25-9-99 stating that she has been allotted land on 10 yearly instalments being a landless person and she has already deposited as many as four instalments, therefore, she may be allowed to deposit the balance amount by ten yearly instalments as agreed by them. 5. Without considering the aforesaid reply of the petitioner again a notice was issued by the respondent-Tehsildar calling upon her to deposit the entire balance amount within three days failing which her allotment order will be cancelled. 6. Under the circumstances Smt. Meera filed writ petition No. 364/2000 and likewise other petitioners have also filed above petitions. Ordinarily, at the notice stage this Court would not interfere, but in an exceptional cases this Court may exercise its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India at the notice stage itself and these are the cases where the Court should exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. If this Court does not exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in the present cases then it would be failure of justice. 7. If this Court does not exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in the present cases then it would be failure of justice. 7. It may be stated that sufficient opportunities were given to the respondents, but learned counsel Shri Khatri appearing for respondents in some of the cases stated at the Bar that though the respondents were duly informed by registered post letter nobody thought it fit to come and file reply affidavit, therefore, in absence of reply affidavit this Court has to proceed and decide the cases on the basis of averments made in the petitions. 8. A short but important question involved in these petitions is that, "whether the respondents can compel the petitioners to deposit the remaining amount, which was to be paid in 10 yearly instalments, within a short period of 15 days or less than that?" The answer is obviously "No." 9. It must be stated that initially the intention of the Government was to provide land to the landless persons, therefore, by a notification dated 4-2-1995 and 22-2-1995 the applications were invited from landless persons for allotment of land in ten equal yearly instalments. It may also be stated that under the aforesaid notifications other allottees were required to pay 35% of total amount at the time of allotment and rest of the amount in three equal yearly instalments. Thus, a clear distinction was drawn between the landless persons and the persons having land at the time of allotment. If, as per the notification the petitioners, who are landless persons, have applied for allotment Of land in 1996 and continue to pay yearly instalments from the.date of their allotment then later on after a period of more than three years it was not open to the respondents to call upon the petitioners to deposit the remaining amount within 15 days or even less than that. The principle of estoppel will certainly apply inihese type of cases where the allotment is made as per the terms and conditions of the notification to the landless persons and the land was allotted in ten equal yearly instalments. The principle of estoppel will certainly apply inihese type of cases where the allotment is made as per the terms and conditions of the notification to the landless persons and the land was allotted in ten equal yearly instalments. This would frustrate the very purpose of allotment to the landless persons and those who are landless, who with great difficulties managed to get the land on ten equal yearly instalments, would not be in a position to pay the remaining amount at once within a short period of 15 days. This action of the authority is absolutely unjust and illegal, therefore, there is no option for this Court but to intervene in these type of cases. 10. In view of the above discussion, all these petitions are allowed. The notices issued by the respondents calling upon the petitioners to pay remaining balance amount within 15 days or less than that are hereby quashed and set aside, and it is ordered that the petitioners shall continue to pay the remaining balance amount as per the allotment orders in ten equal yearly instalments: 11. Accordingly, all the petitions are allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Stay petitions are also disposed of.Petitions allowed. *******