JUDGMENT Jawahar Lal Gupta, J. - On February 26, 1976, a plot measuring 9000 square yards in Ludhiana was allotted to the petitioner at a reserve price of Rs. 81,000/- for running a school. The petitioner failed to erect an appropriate building. Instead, unauthorised construction in the shape of four rooms which did not give even a semblance of a school was raised. Part of the building was let out to the Food & Supplies Department. Unauthorised temporary tenements also exist. Consequently, on May 23, 2000, the Improvement Trust, Ludhiana issued a show cause notice calling upon the petitioner to explain as to why the site be not resumed. Alleging that the petitioner had failed to show cause, order for resumption was passed. The petitioner filed an appeal. On July 18, 2000, the order was set aside by the Government. The case was remanded for a fresh decision. The petitioner appeared before the Chairman of the Trust on July 24, 2000. The case was adjourned twice. Ultimately, an order for resumption was passed on September 18, 2000. The petitioner challenged the order before the State Government under Section 72(E) of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922. Ultimately, vide order dated December 18, 2000, the petition was dismissed. Aggrieved by the orders, the petitioner has approached this Court through this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner prays that the orders dated September 18, 2000 and December 18, 2000, copies of which have been produced as Annexures P.10 and P.19 respectively be quashed. 2. The respondents contest the petitioners claim. A detailed written statement has been filed by the Ludhiana Improvement Trust through its Executive Officer. The allegations made by the petitioner have been controverted. Various documents including the written statement filed on behalf of the Trust in the suit which had been filed by the petitioner in the Court of Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Ludhiana have also been produced. The petitioner has filed a replication. 3. The case was posted before the Bench for hearing on July 17, 2001. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the respondent-Trust had produced 18 photographs printed on 9 sheets. These indicated the actual situation at the spot. These were taken on record as Mark A-1 to A-9. The petitioner has filed a replication. 3. The case was posted before the Bench for hearing on July 17, 2001. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the respondent-Trust had produced 18 photographs printed on 9 sheets. These indicated the actual situation at the spot. These were taken on record as Mark A-1 to A-9. The Bench had given opportunity to the petitioner to furnish information regarding the covered area of the school, the furniture available, the number of teachers alongwith the details regarding their qualifications and salary. Counsel for the petitioner had also undertaken to produce the photographs of the building and the vacant area. The case was adjourned to July 25, 2001. On that day, counsel for the petitioner filed an additional reply. He also produced five photographs which were taken on record as Mark A-10 to A-14. 4. A persual of the additional reply shows that "the total covered area of the school is approximately 400 square yards". The furniture consists of 20 big benches, 20 small benches, 11 chairs, 6 Black-boards, 7 daries/tats. The school has five teachers. Mrs. Vandana Tandon is a Graduate. Out of the remaining four teachers, two are matriculates. One has passed B.A. Part I examination. The fifth teacher has pased the 10+2 examination. Mrs. Tandon is getting a salary of Rs. 1600/- per mensem. The remaining four teachers are getting pay ranging from Rs. 850/- to Rs. 1050/-. There is one Peon and one Chowkidar. Both of them are getting Rs. 750/- each. It is further claimed that there are 140 students in the school. 5. On behalf of the petitioner, it was contended that the Trust had no right to resume the property. The action was wholly without jurisdiction and violative of the provisions of Article 300-A of the Constitution. It was further contended that the petitioner was running a school. Only a room was in occupation of the Food & Supplies Department. The members of the staff were staying in the school. There was no violation of the terms of allotment. Thus, the order of resumption is vitiated. Lastly, it was contended that the action is malafide. The claim made on behalf of the petitioner was controverted by the counsel for the respondents. 6. Admittedly, a substantial area of land measuring 900 square yards was allotted to the petitioner in the year 1976. Thus, the order of resumption is vitiated. Lastly, it was contended that the action is malafide. The claim made on behalf of the petitioner was controverted by the counsel for the respondents. 6. Admittedly, a substantial area of land measuring 900 square yards was allotted to the petitioner in the year 1976. It was given at the nominal price of Rs. 9/- per square yard. In a city like Ludhiana, the land in worth its weight in gold. Its present value is easily in crores. The petitioner has been in possession of this land for a period of about 25 years. During all this period, it has constructed only four rooms and has 140 students. There are no qualified teachers to impart education to the students. It is not surprising that the total number of students is only 140. The calibre of the teachers can be judged from their qualifications and the salaries being paid to them. In this situation, it is clear that there is hardly a school worth the name at the site. 7. It is the admitted position that one of the rooms is with the Food and Supplies Department where a Depot is being run. Besides that, there are a number of hutments. 8. More than the written word, the pictures on record give a clear clue to the situation at the spot. The conditions are pathetic. A look at the pictures shows that the area is virtually a slum. Broken cots, hutments, stray dogs and pigs are there for anyone to see. The standing rain water and the green ivy make the open ground a cess-pool. The conditions are unhygienic. These are unfit for any kind of a school. A good property is being totally wasted. 9. Mr. Mahajan contended that the action of the respondents in resuming the site is without jurisdiction. There is no rule or law authorising them to do so. Thus, the orders are violative of Articles 300-A of the Constitution of India. 10. We are unable to accept this contention. Admittedly, the site was allotted to the petitioner for setting up a school. It has failed to do so. Even if it is assumed that there is no specific law or rule providing for resumption, it is clear that the petitioners rights are not governed by any statute. 10. We are unable to accept this contention. Admittedly, the site was allotted to the petitioner for setting up a school. It has failed to do so. Even if it is assumed that there is no specific law or rule providing for resumption, it is clear that the petitioners rights are not governed by any statute. Even the title has not passed to the petitioner as no conveyance deed has been executed so far. As such, the rights of the parties shall be governed by the letter of allotment. A copy of this letter has been produced as Annexure P.2 with the writ petition. 11. A perusal of this letter shows that the plot was allotted to the petitioner-Society for running a primary school. No part of this land was to be sold to any one in any manner. The site has not been used for the purpose as no school worth the name has been erected at the spot. Still further, as many as 25 hutments exist at the site. These portray slum like conditions. In this situation, we are satisfied that the petitioner has not complied with the terms of the allotment. Firstly, it has failed to raise and run a school. Secondly, a part of the area is being used by the Food and Supplies Department. It appears to have been let out. Thirdly, hutments for residents exist on the plot. Thus, there was a clear violation of the terms of allotment. Even if the rights of the parties are governed by the terms of allotment, the petitioner has failed to comply with the terms. Thus, it is not entitled to retain the land. 12. Mr. Mahajan contended that the room in which the Depot is being run by the Food & Supplies Department is not a part of the plot which had been allotted to the petitioner. 13. There is no basis for this contention. It was not disputed by the counsel that the alleged room is within the boundary of the building. Nothing has been placed on record to show that it is an area which has not a part of the land allotted to the petitioner. Thus, the contention cannot be sustained. 14. It was contended by Mr. Mahajan that no power to resume the site had been reserved by the Trust. Thus, the order of resumption is vitiated. 15. Nothing has been placed on record to show that it is an area which has not a part of the land allotted to the petitioner. Thus, the contention cannot be sustained. 14. It was contended by Mr. Mahajan that no power to resume the site had been reserved by the Trust. Thus, the order of resumption is vitiated. 15. We are unable to accept this contention. The power to allot includes the power to cancel the allotment. The petitioner has been unable to raise a school for a long period of 25 years in terms of the letter of allotment. In this situation, the property is being wasted. The action of the Trust in resuming it is absolutely just and fair. Mr. Mahajan contended that the power to resume should be the last resort. He referred to the decision in Jai Gopal Gupta and another v. State of Punjab and another, 1991(2) PLR 50 and Shri Ram Puri v. The Chief Commissioner, Chandigarh and others, 1982 PLR 388. There is no quarrel with the proposition. Resumption should normally be the last measure. However, it is present case, it is clear that the respondents had waited for more than 24 years before initiating proceedings for resumption. This was when the petitioner had failed to take measures for using the land for a primary school. Even now, the petitioner is not in a position to raise a proper building and run a school. The counsel admitted that the petitioner has no funds. 16. It was contended by the counsel that the school is being actually run. Thus, the action is invalid. 17. This contention cannot be accepted. As already noticed, the situation at the spot is pathetic. The school has not been recognised by any authority. In a thickly-populated city like Ludhiana, it has been able to attract only 140 students. There are no facilities for them. No proper class-rooms. No playground. The pictures portray no school. Only a slum. It is a misnomer to call it a school. Thus, it is wrong to suggest that there is a school. 18. Lastly, it was contended that the action is malafide. Respondent No. 4 who is a MLA from Ludhiana is after the property. 19. We are unable to accept this contention. It is a case where the facts are patent on the record. The action has been taken by the Trust. 18. Lastly, it was contended that the action is malafide. Respondent No. 4 who is a MLA from Ludhiana is after the property. 19. We are unable to accept this contention. It is a case where the facts are patent on the record. The action has been taken by the Trust. It has been affirmed by the Government. Apparently, the fourth respondent had no role to play. Furthermore, it has been found as a fact that the usage of the site "as a school is just a formality". There are 25 hutments (Jhuggis) on the land. A room has been given on rent to the Department of Food and Supplies. On a consideration of these facts, it has been found that "there has been misuse of the land allotted for special and specific purposes at concessional rate". Nothing has been pointed out to show that these findings are incorrect. No other point was raised. 20. Before parting with the case, we may notice that in view of the suggestion made on behalf of the petitioner that the land might be allotted to the fourth respondent, we had asked Mr. Hemant Kumar, counsel for the respondent-Trust as to whether or not the land shall be sold by open public auction after due advertisement. He assured us that the land shall not be allotted to any individual. It shall be sold by a public auction. In this situation, it is clear that the land shall not be allotted to an individual to help or favour any one. 21. In view of the above, we find no merit in this petition. It is, consequently, dismissed. It is, however, clarified that the land shall be sold by public auction. The needful shall be done at the earliest. There will be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.