JUDGMENT 1. - In these three petitions, inter-related questions are involved and since they have been treated as public interest litigation, all the three matters have been heard by the Division Bench. So far as DBCWP No. 5481/94 filed by M/s. Diamond Gem and Development Corporation and the other petition being WP No. 454/93 filed by Subhash Sindhi Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., Jaipur and 34 others, as petitioners are concerned, both these petitions were initially filed as Single Bench petitions. WP No. 5481/94 was heard before the Single Bench until it was released on 31.8.2001 for being listed before the regular bench hearing such mattes. Thereafter, in terms of the order passed on 18.9.2001 in WP No. 105/97, this matter was listed before the Division Bench. WP No. 454/93 was listed before the Single Bench till 17th December, 1997 and thereafter it was listed before the Division Bench in terms of the order dated 17.12.1997 passed by the Single Bench. This is how in terms of the order dated 18.9.2001 passed in WP No. 105/97 all these three matters have been heard together and looking to the inter-related questions relating to public 'interest', we propose to decide these three petitions by this common judgment and order as under:Writ Petition No. 5481/94 2. This petition has been filed by Diamond and Gem Development Corporation (which will be hereinafter referred to as 'DGDC' for short) against the State of Rajasthan, Rajasthan Industrial and Investment Corporation Ltd., (which will hereinafter be referred to as 'RIICO', for short). The petitioner DGDC is a Company registered under the Indian Companies Act. It wanted to set up a Gem Park at Jaipur on the lines similar to the Diamond Industrial Park, Near Surat in the State of Gujarat. DGDC therefore, prepared a scheme to set up Gem Stone Industrial Park and this Scheme was sent to the State Government and the RIICO. The State Government approved the scheme and the RIICO located suitable land for setting up such Gem Park. On 10th March, 1988, land measuring 105 Acres was allotted to DGDC in RIICO Industrial Area, Phase-II, Sanganer. The State Government had accepted the idea of establishing the Gem Stone Industrial Park at Jaipur and only for that reason, the land was allotted and formal lease deed was executed on 10th March, 1988 in respect of the land described as above. The State Government had accepted the idea of establishing the Gem Stone Industrial Park at Jaipur and only for that reason, the land was allotted and formal lease deed was executed on 10th March, 1988 in respect of the land described as above. The petitioner paid the entire cost in accordance with the lease agreement at the rate of Rs. 1 lac per Acre and was also paying regularly the lease rent as fixed by the RIICO. 3. Acquisition proceedings for this 105 Acres of land were initiated by the RIICO and possession of the complete land ad-measuring 105 Acres could not be handed over by the RIICO to the petitioner because there was some dispute relating to the acquisition pending in various courts and the Khatedars remained in cultivatory possession of the land in question. It was after great efforts by the petitioner that it could obtain possession of about 80 Acres of land which took long time and still 25 Acres of land was not available for Gem Stone Industrial park. The reasons for not making available 25 Acres of land were - reservation for Mazar and Mausaleum, erosion of land by the Amani Shah Ka Nala and the Subhash Sindhi Cooperative Housing Society as well as the Khatedars who were raising disputes with regard to the acquisition of this land. 4. For the development of Gem Stone Industrial Park, a master plan was prepared and submitted to the RIICO and development activities had started. Towards northern side of the land, land of other Housing Cooperative Society was in existence and therefore, from this side, no approach was available to the land of the petitioner DGDC known as Industrial Area, Phase-II, Sanganer. Towards the western side of the petitioner's land, there is Amani Shah Ka Nala and therefore, no approach road is available. Towards the southern side also. Amani Shah Ka Nala continues and no approach road is available. The only approach to the land is available from the eastern side. The main Tonk Road, which connects Jaipur to Sanganer Airport, is situated towards the eastern side of this land. However, the petitioner DGDC was using a Kaccha way which is 1/2 Km. from the main Tonk Road to the land in dispute and in between the petitioner's land and the Tonk road, there is an agricultural land belonging to Kamani Farm. 5. However, the petitioner DGDC was using a Kaccha way which is 1/2 Km. from the main Tonk Road to the land in dispute and in between the petitioner's land and the Tonk road, there is an agricultural land belonging to Kamani Farm. 5. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No. 2 had allotted the land to the petitioner in Industrial Area, Phase-II, Sanganer but there was no approach road. The petitioner had therefore sent several reminders and requested that approach road be made available from Tonk Road but the petitioner did not get anything from respondent No. 2 RIICO except assurances. Absence of the approach road has hampered development of the park and the execution of the master plan. DGDC Advisory Committee suggested that the DGDC may negotiate with the land owners since the proceedings of land acquisition may take a long time. However, the negotiations did not yield any result and the petitioner was left with no alternative but to send several reminders and representations to provide the approach road from the side of Tonk Road for the said park. Yet, there was no result. In July, 1994, when Kamani Farms placed gates on the Kaccha road on 25.7.1994 the approach road stood obstructed. The Gem Stone Park was established in public interest yet the approach road was not provided for a period of nearly six years. The petitioner had to file the writ petition with the prayer that the respondents be directed to provide immediately the approach road to the petitioner from the main Tonk Road to the Gem Stone Industrial Park, Jaipur. 6. Reply to the writ petition has been filed by the RIICO on 8th August, 1995 and the stand has been taken that the RIICO was not duty bound to provide any approach road which was to be maintained and managed by the it petitioner itself and the prayer to dismiss the petition has been made.Writ Petition No. 105/97 7. During the pendency of the petition, as aforesaid, this second petition was filed by the DGDC before this Court. Through this petition, the DGDC has challenged the order dated 1.10.1996 passed by the Regional Manager, RIICO under the directions of the RIICO through its Executive Director. During the pendency of the petition, as aforesaid, this second petition was filed by the DGDC before this Court. Through this petition, the DGDC has challenged the order dated 1.10.1996 passed by the Regional Manager, RIICO under the directions of the RIICO through its Executive Director. The case of the petitioner DGDC while challenging the order dated 1.10.1996 is that the RIICO is acting at the dictates of the State Government and it seeks to dispossess the petitioner company forcibly from Plot No. SP-1 situated in Sanganer Industrial Area, Phase-II, Jaipur. Through this petition, order dated 1.10.1996 passed by the RIICO in respect of Plot No. SP-1, situated at Sanganer Industrial Area, Phase-II, Jaipur which had earlier been allotted to the petitioner, has been cancelled and the lease agreement has also been determined with immediate effect. The conditions incorporated in clause (d) and 2(n) of the lease agreement dated 22.5.1989 have been s sought to be declared as directory in nature and a direction has been sought against RIICO to hand over possession of Plot No. SP-1 in Sanganer Industrial Area, Phase-II, Jaipur to the petitioner DGDC and that the respondents be restrained from dispossessing the petitioner company from Plot No. SP-1, situated in Sanganer Industrial Area, Phase-II, Jaipur without : due process of law. 8. This petition is also being contested by the respondents and replies have been filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3. An application has also been filed by Gem Park Entrepreneurs Association for being impleaded as a party.Writ Petition No. 454/93 9. This writ petition has been filed by Subhash Sindhi Cooperative Housing Society and others with the prayer that the land admeasuring 17 Bighas 9 Biswas comprised in Khasra Nos. 226 to 230 be released and the same be returned to the petitioners and in the alternative, the State Government be directed to allot suitable land equivalent to the land admeasuring 17 Bighas 9 Biswas and possession be returned to the petitioner and out of 105 Acres of land allotted in favour of the DGDC, which includes the land in question, the petitioner's land in dispute, be ordered to be returned to the petitioner. 10. This petition is also-being contested by the respondents and separate replies have been filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 3, 2 and 1 to 6. 11. 10. This petition is also-being contested by the respondents and separate replies have been filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 3, 2 and 1 to 6. 11. To appreciate the grievance of this Society, we give the background and the history of earlier litigation as under:12-13. Notice under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 18th July, 1979 whereby 591 Acres of land was sought to be acquired for the purpose of RIICO. This land is situated in Jaipur Revenue Distt. Durgapura. Out of this 591 Acres of land, land measuring 105 Acres from Durgapura was to be given to the DGDC. The petitioner Society is concerned with 17 Bighas 9 Biswas plus 1 Bigha and 15 Biswas of this land which had been given to DGDC as would be clear from the following factual position:- (i) The land holders had challenged the acquisition proceedings in respect of land measuring 17 Bighas 9 Biswas and for that purpose, four petitions were filed at Jodhpur - three by members of the petitioner Society i.e. Subhash Sindhi Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. These petitions were filed by 34 members of the Society. One petition was separately filed by the Khatedar tenant. (ii) On 21st August, 1990, the Division Bench dismissed the petitions on the ground of delay and laches. (iii) Four SLPs were filed before the Supreme Court-three by the members of the Society and one by the Khatedar tenant. Out of these four SLPs, three were adjourned with an order to maintain status quo and the fourth SLP filed by the Khatedar tenant was dismissed. (iv) In this regard, order dated 23.9.1991 as was passed by the Supreme Court is reproduced as under: "Form No. 20 Court No. 1 Section XI In The Supreme Court of India Record of Proceedings After Notice Petition for special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 16323/1990 (From the judgment and order dated 21.8.1990 of the High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur in CWP No. 2536/89 and CWP Nos. 323, 2052 and 2268/89. Ram Kripal and ors. etc Petitioners. Versus State of Rajasthan and ors. (with SLP 16567-69 of 1990) (with application for stay and office report) Date 23.9.1991 Coram Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India Hon'ble Mr. Justice PB. Sawant For the petitioners (16323) Mr. K. Parasaran, Sr. Adv. Mr. Manoj Prasad, Advocate. 16367-69 Mr. V.M. Tarkunde, Sr. Adv. Ms. Ram Kripal and ors. etc Petitioners. Versus State of Rajasthan and ors. (with SLP 16567-69 of 1990) (with application for stay and office report) Date 23.9.1991 Coram Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India Hon'ble Mr. Justice PB. Sawant For the petitioners (16323) Mr. K. Parasaran, Sr. Adv. Mr. Manoj Prasad, Advocate. 16367-69 Mr. V.M. Tarkunde, Sr. Adv. Ms. N.N. Salve, Indra Makwana, Advs. For the respondents SLP No. 16523 Mr. P.P. Rao, Sr. Adv. M/s. Gr. Gokhale, S. Narain Shri Narain, Advocate for the State of Rajasthan: Mr. Aruneshwar Gupta, Adv. M/s. Gopal Suramaniam G.T. Gokhale, Sandeep Narain, Shri Narain, Advs. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following: ORDER S.L.R No. 16323/90 We have heard Mr. Parasaran for the petitioners and Mr. Rao for the respondents. We are of the view that in the facts arising in this case, there should be no interference. We take note of the fact that the property which is a subject matter of the dispute in the acquisition has already been transferred to a third party. The petition is accordingly dismissed. S.L.P. No. 16567-69/90 The petitions are adjourned for three weeks to enable the State of Rajasthan to file its counter-affidavit. In the meantime, status quo as of today be maintained. Sd/- (Harish Kr. Juneja) Court Master Sd/- (N. Dhingra) Court Master." (v) This order dated 23.9.1991 was followed by yet another order dated 9th September, 1992 passed by the Supreme Court which has been annexed as Annexure-2 with the petition. The order dated 23.9.1991 is also reproduced hereunder: "FORM NO. 1 COURT NO. 2 SECTION XV In The Supreme Court of India Record of Proceedings Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 16567-69/90 A/N (From the judgment and order dated 21.8.1990 of the High Court of Rajasthan Jodhpur Bench in DBCWP No. 323, 2062 and 2268/89. Banwari Lal & ors Petitioners Versus State of Rajasthan and ors. (With application for stay and exem. from filing O.T.) Date 9.9.1992 Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.B. Sawant Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. Venkatachala For the petitioners : Mr. D.D. Thakur, Sr. Adv. Mr. Harish K. Salve, Sr. Adv. M/s. Indra Makwana, K.K. Khanna, Sudhanshu Atreya and Rajendra Tantia, Advs. For the respondents For R. 2 & 4 Mr. Aruneshwar Gupta, Adv. (With application for stay and exem. from filing O.T.) Date 9.9.1992 Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.B. Sawant Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. Venkatachala For the petitioners : Mr. D.D. Thakur, Sr. Adv. Mr. Harish K. Salve, Sr. Adv. M/s. Indra Makwana, K.K. Khanna, Sudhanshu Atreya and Rajendra Tantia, Advs. For the respondents For R. 2 & 4 Mr. Aruneshwar Gupta, Adv. M/s. R.F. Nariman, E.A.K. Faizullabhoy, Sandeep Narain & Shri Narain, Advs. Upon hearing counsel the Court made the following: ORDER The Special Leave Petitions stand dismissed. However, the dismissal of the petitions will not operate as res judicata if the Society of which the petitioners are members, approaches the Court for release of their land on the ground that the lands claimed by the similarly situated individuals or institutions, if any, were released from acquisition. It is alleged on behalf of the petitioners that after the acquisition of the land, some portions of land have, fraudulently and in abuse of power been allotted to respondent No. 4. If so, the dismissal of the present petitions will also not operate as res judicata, if the Society of which the petitioners are members, approaches the Court for relief on that ground. Sd/- (A. Hirwani) Court Master." (vi) Thereafter, the present petition was filed in which notice was issued on 2.2.1993 as to why the petition should not be disposed of at admission stage. Thereafter, the Judge who passed the earlier order on 2.2.1993 made an exception on 22.4.1993. When the matter came up before the court on 16.9.1997, an order was passed as under: "S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 454/93 Hon'ble Mr. Y.R. Meena, J. 16.9.1997 Mr. Jagdeep Dhankar with Mr. J.K. Yogi, for the petitioner. Mr. A.K. Bhandari, for respondent No. 1. Mr. A.K. Sharma, for respondent No. 2. Mr. B.L. Avasthi for respondent No. 6. In reply to application filed by petitioner dated 14.5.1997, respondent No. 1 has clarified the position regarding the land referred in para No. 5 of the application. It has been clarified that out of 119 bighas of land except Khasra No. 126 min, 137 and 232 min entire land has been allotted to RIICO for development and Khasra No. 126 and 137 has been released as it was not possible to acquire the land because some construction has already been raised. It has been clarified that out of 119 bighas of land except Khasra No. 126 min, 137 and 232 min entire land has been allotted to RIICO for development and Khasra No. 126 and 137 has been released as it was not possible to acquire the land because some construction has already been raised. In reply filed by respondent No. 2, it has been submitted that 105 bigha land was allotted to RIICO including 105 Acres of land. The land of Khasra No. 226 and 230 situated in village Durgapura has been allotted to Diamond and Gems Development Corporation vide lease deed dated 22.5.1989. Mr. Dhankar submits that though the land of petitioner Society is part of the land comprising 105 bigha, which is referred in additional plea of reply filed by respondent No. 2, but full detail of 119 Bighas of land, mentioned in para No. 5 of application, has not been given. To ascertain factual aspect of the matter, the respondent No. 2 is directed to file additional affidavit clarify the latest position of Khasra numbers referred in para No. 5 of application of petitioner. The respondent No. 2 is also directed to give the fact in affidavit, whether any construction has been raised by any society in the land referred in para No. 5 of the application of petitioner. The affidavit be filed within 3 weeks. Put up after three weeks. Sd/-" Thereafter, on behalf of respondent No. 2 i.e. RIICO, additional affidavit was filed by Shri G.N. Jhingal, Assistant Manager (Law) of RIICO, and on the basis of this additional affidavit, it is very clear that- as per the acquisition proceedings which commenced in July, 1979, the land which was sought to be acquired in Village Durgapura, was 119 Bighas 4 Biswas. -the land (of which possession was not taken) measured 12 Bighas 6 Biswas (comprised in Khasra Nos. 126, 128, 129, 137, 153 and 156). -land of which possession was taken -106 Bighas 18 Biswas -Land for which acquisition proceedings were quashed as per the judgment rendered on 12.7.1979 in CWP No. 324/89 i.e. S.D. Agrawal v. State of Rajasthan -12 Bighas -and thus, the balance land remained 86 Bighas 18 Biswas. -land belonging to the petitioner Subhash Sindhi Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. -17 Bighas 9 Biswas. -land belonging to the petitioner Subhash Sindhi Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. -17 Bighas 9 Biswas. -after deducting this land measuring 17 Bighas 9 Bighas from the balance land of 86 Bighas 18 Biswas, the remaining land measures 69 Bighas 9 Biswas and this is the land of which although possession was taken during the acquisition proceedings somewhere in 1982-83 yet on submission of the scheme plans by various Cooperative Housing Societies much after taking of the possession, plans were approved in compliance of various orders issued by the Government of Rajasthan after 1986. -Compensation to the recorded Khatedars of the land was also paid in terms of the Award dated 14.5.1984 and the amount was duly received by the Khatedars/persons having interest in the land. (13) On the question of release of the lands, a reference was made to the document Annexure R-2/5, dated 19.10.1981, Annexure-33 dated 19.11.1990 (Page 242 of the paper book), Annexure R-2/4 dated 21.7.1983, Annexure-35 dated 12.10.1984 (page 244 of the Paper Book), Annexure-22, dated 23.11.1984 (page 222 of the Paper Book), Annexure-23 dated 17.7.1985 (page 223 of the Paper Book), Annexure- 24 dated 14.8.1985 (page 224 of the Paper Book) (decision dated 9.12.1983), Annexure-25 dated 17.11.1988 (page 225 of the Paper Book), Annexure-26 dated 29.11.1989 (page 226 of the Paper Book), Annexure-27 dated 18.6.1989 (page 227 of the Paper Book), which are consistent with the petitioner's averments and in view of release and de facto release of acquired land in terms of the condition incorporated in the body of the order dated 9.9.1992 itself, passed by the Supreme Court, the petitioners could certainly approach this Court again. Annexure-22 dated 23.11.1984 also shows that a decision was taken at the meeting presided by the Chief Minister and the petitioners have raised the grievance that this decision had been implemented qua everybody except the petitioner Society. In order to show that after acquisition, the land was acquired and it was made available to RIICO, reference was made to the document Annexure-27 dated 18th June, 1989 (at page 227 of the Paper Book) and Annexure-29 dated 12.12.1983 (at page 232 of the Paper Book). The conversion authority had also issued certificate dated 14.7.1986 (Annexure-30) (at page 238 of the Paper Book) and Patta (Annexure-31) (at page 239 of the Paper Book) but Mr. The conversion authority had also issued certificate dated 14.7.1986 (Annexure-30) (at page 238 of the Paper Book) and Patta (Annexure-31) (at page 239 of the Paper Book) but Mr. Dhankhar, has pointed out that it was under government's policy decision and for that purpose, reference was made to Annexure-7 dated 27.2.1982 (at pages 115-120 of the Paper Book), Annexure-9, circular dated 3.4.1982 (at page 128 of the Paper Book) to show the cases contrary to land acquisition in the master plan. Reference was also made to the photographs (at pages 247 and onwards of the Paper Book) showing use of the acquired land. The map shows that the lands at Item Nos. 7, 8 and 9 were given to the DGDC but the land at Item No. 9 does not relate to Durgapura, instead lands at Item Nos. 8 and 7 do relate to Durgapura and the disputed land is at Item No. 8. On the vacant land, construction was not a condition precedent for the purpose o£ seeking regularisation or getting advantage of the circular for acquired lands but all these efforts did not have the desired impact. Annexure-20 dated 9.12.1983 (at page 173 of the Paper Book) is the decision taken by the JDA under the chairmanship of the Chief Minister. The decision dated 9.12.1983 was never reviewed and it was implemented qua everybody except the petitioner Society. 14. In the meeting of the JDA, decision was taken under section 16(b) after full deliberations and this was a decision taken by the high development authority at which several wings were represented. The affidavit dated 27th March, 1997 would show that no construction was raised on land which fell in Khasra Nos. 226 to 230 and possession of the land was taken by the RIICO on 3.10.1996. Shri Jhingal in para 4 his affidavit has stated that compensation had been paid but later on a correction was filed to show that no payment of compensation was made and why the payment had not been made, has been explained at page 164 of the Paper Book and the only reason which has been given for non-payment, is shortage of funds.15. The Note dated 4th May, 1987 and the circular dated 13.10.1987 (Annexure-11A) at page 148 of the Paper Book was used to argue that the reference in respect of the acquired land was Government policy even if possession had been secured on paper or otherwise. It has been submitted that no compensation was ever tendered or received. The land is as it is and where it was. Liberal promotion and attractive policy of development was followed in respect of the lands acquired and not an inch of land has been used for the purpose it was acquired. This gave rise to the legitimate expectation to the petitioner Society and others. According to the petitioner Society, the DGDC is a profiteering agency to make unjust enrichment and it intended to utilise the land for residential purposes. This Society failed to raise unauthorised constructions and learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that there cannot be a greater fault than failure.16. It was also submitted that the Supreme Court did not make reference to Section 48 and it should be construed as a case of de facto release and that the lands which have been acquired stand released without any formal order.17. Learned counsel for the petitioner Society has gone to the extent of arguing that allotment of the land of DGDC was the result of fraud and abuse of the powers. He has made reference to Annexure-40 dated 29th September, 1986 (page 251 of the Paper Book) and submitted that only 50 Acres of the land was demanded by the DGDC. Annexure-44A dated 11.3.1987 (at page 261 of the Paper Book) shows that the demand of land was increased by the DGDC to 75 Acres and thereafter, the document Annexure-46 dated 17.8.1987 (at page 264 of the Paper Book) shows that the DGDC was satisfied even with 35 Acres of the land. The document (Annexure-47) dated 30th October, 1987 (at page 265 of the Paper Book) shows that only 30 Acres of land was earmarked. Annexure-48 dated 10.11.1987 (at page 266 of the Paper Book) shows the acceptance of 30 Acres of land but vide Annexure-49 dated 29th December, 1987 (at page 268 of the Paper Book) the demand was again raised to 105 Acres. Annexure-48 dated 10.11.1987 (at page 266 of the Paper Book) shows the acceptance of 30 Acres of land but vide Annexure-49 dated 29th December, 1987 (at page 268 of the Paper Book) the demand was again raised to 105 Acres. Thus, the graph of the demand went up from 50 to 75 Acres, it decreased to 35 Acres and 30 Acres and again increased to 105 Acres. One fails to understand as to what rational consideration would have prevailed. It has been submitted by Mr. Dhankhar that no scrutiny was made, there was no application of mind, the matter was not rationally examined and the manner in which the matter had proceeded, it militates against public interest. The authority acting under public law demand has acted in a manner which is arbitrary and illegal.18. A stand has also been taken that the authorities acted at the dictates of the DGDC. Reference in this connection was made to Annexure-68 dated 14.7.1992 (at page 307 of the Paper Book) and Annexure-42 dated 27.1.1987 (at page 256 of the paper book).19. in sum and substance, the case of the petitioner Society is that many lands were released or stood de facto released and therefore, in terms of the order of the Supreme Court the land which belonged to the petitioner Society should also have been released and should be treated as released from acquisition and thus land measuring 17 Bighas 9 Biswas should also be made available to the Society.20. The case of the DGDC is that 105 Acres of land was allotted to it on 10.3.1988 by the RIICO for setting up the Gem and Jewellery Park and on 22.5.1989, the RIICO executed lease in favour of the DGDC for this 105 Acres of land. RIICO, however, failed to carry out its obligation so as to provide an approach road and also failed to deliver possession in respect of certain portion of the land out of 105 Acres and the RIICO also initiated series of wrongful steps which rendered the implementation of the Project impossible.21. On 30th June, 1993, RIICO called upon the petitioner to surrender 10 Acres of land free of cost to which the DGDC objected. On 30th June, 1993, RIICO called upon the petitioner to surrender 10 Acres of land free of cost to which the DGDC objected. On 29th August, 15 1996, the RIICO issued a show cause notice proposing cancellation of the land allotted to the DGDC and on 3.9.1996, DGDC had assailed the notice dated 29th August, 1996 through Writ Petition No. 2247/96. On 27th September, 1996, the writ petition was dismissed in limine on the ground of being premature and on 3.10.1996, the RIICO forcibly dispossessed DGDC without following due process of law and took under its control the assets of the DGDC that were lying on the land in question including the building constructed thereon as also other movable assets owned by DGDC. In the meanwhile, on 1.9.1996, DGDC filed special appeal against the order dated 27.9.1996 passed by this Court and on 23.10.1996, the said special appeal was withdrawn in view of the subsequent developments so as to file a fresh petition in respect of new cause of action and accordingly, the present writ petition was filed before this Court.22. A submission was made that with the introduction of the statutory fiction brought about, by way of amendment of the Industrial Area Allotment 30 Rules, by notification dated 4.11.1991, the State Government stood substituted as the Lessor and the contractual terms of the lease stood substituted by the terms provided for under the Rules of 1991. Consequent thereto, the lease became cancellable only by the State Government and not by the RIICO and further that such cancellation was capable of being effected only for a violation of the statutorily modified terms and not for violation of the original terms of contract. The amendment under Rule 11A with regard to the allotment of land to the Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Ltd. and Condition No. (iv) thereunder in the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Industrial Areas Allotment) Rules, 1959 is reproduced as under: "11-A. Allotment of Land to the Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Ltd., - Land shall be allotted to the Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Ltd., for setting up and developing t Industrial Areas, on the following terms and conditions: (i)..... (ii).... (iii).... (iv) The Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Ltd. may sub-lease the leased land or part thereof for industrial purpose; including essential welfare and supporting services. (ii).... (iii).... (iv) The Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Ltd. may sub-lease the leased land or part thereof for industrial purpose; including essential welfare and supporting services. Provided that in the case of Diamond and Gem Development Corporation to whom the land has already been leased out by RIICO for 99 years, the sub-lessee i.e. DGDC may further subject and the terms and conditions and other provisions contained in the rules in so far as they relate to RIICO shall mutatis mutandis apply to DGDC also as if the land in question has been let out to them by State Government under Rule 11-A." 23. It was also submitted on behalf of the DGDC that even if it is assumed, without admitting, that there was a valid cancellation of the lease, it still has the right to remain in possession till it was dispossessed in accordance with due process of law.24. So far as RIICO is concerned, the meeting of the Board of Directors was held on 21.1.1997 wherein the proposal for development of taken over land allotted to DGDC for Gem Stone Industrial Park and settlement of institutional dues of DGDC was considered. It was on 24.4.1997 that audit was conducted by the RIICO and it is said that in this audit, serious irregularities were detected showing misappropriation of public funds to other subsidiary companies of DGDC, and in this regard, a letter dated 1.5.1997 had been received by the RIICO, to review the books of accounts of DGDC and letter dated 13.5.1997 was sent by RIICO to one Shri S.N. Sharma to submit the books of account in question. A fax massage had also been sent by the Dy. Secretary to Government, Industries Department, asking Shri S.N. Sharma to participate in the meeting to be held on 8th May, 1997, under the chairmanship of the Dy. Chief Minister. On 6th May, 1997, Shri S.N. Sharma refused to participate in the meeting on the pretext that the matter was sub judiced before the Court. However, the meeting was held on 8th May, 1997 and certain decisions were taken. On 4.6.1997, an amount of Rs. 36.10 lacs was sanctioned for the construction work of incomplete cluster building at Gem Stone Industrial Park. An amount of Rs. However, the meeting was held on 8th May, 1997 and certain decisions were taken. On 4.6.1997, an amount of Rs. 36.10 lacs was sanctioned for the construction work of incomplete cluster building at Gem Stone Industrial Park. An amount of Rs. 39 lacs was sanctioned for another cluster building i.e. at Gem Stone Industrial Park on 4th June, 1997 for expeditious development of the area in question by the RIICO and the construction work of substantial nature was undertaken.25. With regard to the argument based on the amendment in Rule 11A and the legal fiction, the case of RIICO is that it is not open to DGDC to question the status of RIICO as a Lessor of DGDC and the permission granted by the RIICO to DGDC to create sub lease in favour of allottees of industrial units which have been recognised in the rules, does not mean that the State Government came to be substituted as a Lessor to DGDC in place of RIICO. Even otherwise, no such stand was ever taken by the DGDC and the termination of lease by the RIICO has not been assailed on this ground.26. Having considered the case of all the parties and having considered the factual and legal submissions made on their behalf, relevant provisions of law and the record and material available before us, we are of the view that: (i) the contention regarding deemed fiction on the basis of amendment in Rule 11-A of the Rules as was made on 4.11.1991 appears to be convincing. Through this rule, it has been provided that in case of DGDC to whom the land had already been leased out other provisions contained in the Rules, in so far as they relate to RIICO shall mutatis mutandis apply to DGDC as if the land had been let out to them by the State Government. Thus, on the basis of the deemed fiction, it becomes a case of letting out of this land to DGDC by the State Government and DGDC is right in contending that after 4.11.1991, RIICO had no authority to cancel allotment of land which was made of the DGDC and it is only the State Govt, which could the allotment and therefore, cancellation of this allotment IICO is wholly without jurisdiction. We may here observe that when the authority is given by a deemed provision and amendment to that effect is made in the Rules, as per the settled law, action is required to be taken in the manner in which it is provided under the law and not in any other manner, whatsoever. In any set of rules, when there is a deeming provision, it has the same effect as the original provision. Vesting of power in a particular authority in which a time limit is fixed on the authority to act and it is provided that failure to act within such time limit shall result in deemed permission, failure on the part of such authority to act as per the power vested in it and within the time limit which is fixed under the deeming provision, has to be upheld. There are large number of cases when permission is sought for construction of building, from bodies like the JDA and the law provides that if such permission is not granted within the time fixed under the rule, permission shall be deemed to have been granted, the authority has to act within that time and if it fails to act within the time schedule as fixed under the Rules, there is automatically a deemed permission to that effect for raising such constructions and it is only for this reason that they are expected to act within the time limit as the failure would result into automatic and deemed permission. In our opinion, in such cases of deemed provisions and claiming of benefit by legal fiction, if the authority feels that time limit is expiring because of the fault of the other party, such authority must discharge its obligation by giving the notice to the other side that if you fail to discharge your obligation before the last day under the deeming provision, you will not be entitled to the benefit of such deeming provision. In the case at hand, through the amendment dated 4.11.1991 deeming fiction has been incorporated and accordingly, it has to be taken as if the land in question had been let out to it by the State Government and therefore, even if it had been let out earlier by the RIICO, it has to be taken as if it was let out by the State Government to DGDC in view of the amendment dated 4.11.1991 and therefore, action of the RIICO in cancellation of the lease made in favour of DGDC was without jurisdiction. (ii) Thus, from the pleadings of the parties and the contentions which have been raised before us in these matters, we find that there is a triangular contest on one side and there is a lis between RIICO and the DGDC as the lease which was given to DGDC by the RIICO has been cancelled; the other part of the grievance of DGDC against RIICO is that the land as was allotted to it had no approach road and further that the entire land of 105 Acres was not given and only a part of it was given and therefore, the purpose for which this land was allotted was defeated by the RIICO itself and there was no question of cancellation of the lease, on the contrary the RIICO was under an obligation to take steps so as to provide for the approach road. (iii) The third contest is between the Subhash Sindhi Cooperative Housing Society against the State Government, RIICO and DGDC and this Society seeks the land measuring 17 Bighas 9 Biswas out of the land which was allotted to DGDC. (iv) So far as the writ petition as had been filed by the DGDC in the year 1994 is concerned, it is clear that the whole purpose of any allotment of such a big chunk of land to the extent of 105 Acres, stands defeated, so as to make industries on such land functional unless approach road is made available. There was an implied and constructive obligation on the part of the lessor authorities i.e. RIICO to provide approach road in respect of the land which had been allotted and we find that the grievance as was raised by the DGDC against RIICO for this purpose, is wholly justified. There was an implied and constructive obligation on the part of the lessor authorities i.e. RIICO to provide approach road in respect of the land which had been allotted and we find that the grievance as was raised by the DGDC against RIICO for this purpose, is wholly justified. Efforts ought to have been made to provide such approach road and if such approach road was not provided, a direction has to be issued in favour of the DGDC and against RIICO and other concerned respondents to take immediate steps and find out the way to provide for approach road to DGDC and the writ petition which has been filed by DGDC in the year 1994 for approach road must succeed. (v) So far as the other writ petition which has been filed subsequently against cancellation of the lease as was granted by RIICO to the DGDC, we find that firstly, the RIICO itself failed to provide approach road; secondly it also failed to give possession of complete land which was allotted but also did not consider the demands made by the DGDC in its correct perspective. The land was acquired only for the purpose of installing Gem Stone Industrial Park as it has been successfully running in Surat and the idea was to keep the traditions of Jaipur in this business to be alive before the world in a big way so as to keep the heritage of Jaipur in tact and in this regard, a body like RIICO instead of extending a helping hand and cooperation for accomplishment of the task which had been undertaken, proceeded to cancel the allotment for no good grounds and reasons which could be said to be germane. Such action cannot be held to be justified and in our opinion, cancellation cannot be sustained and the same has to be set aside for twin reasons i.e. lack of justification and lack of authority with RIICO. (vi) The petitioner Subhash Sindhi Cooperative Housing Society is contesting only for a limited piece of land measuring 17 Bighas 9 Biswas which had been acquired and given to DGDC by the RIICO. (vi) The petitioner Subhash Sindhi Cooperative Housing Society is contesting only for a limited piece of land measuring 17 Bighas 9 Biswas which had been acquired and given to DGDC by the RIICO. The case of the Society is that in view of the observations made by the Supreme Court in its order, it has pleaded its case in this petition on the basis that the other land which had been acquired had been released or it stood de facto released and the Government was itself a party to it in releasing the acquired land and large number of lands of this nature de facto stood released from acquisition inasmuch as houses have been constructed thereon; the Government itself has acquiesced with such construction and has also taken steps for regularisation of such constructions and the decision which was taken by the JDA in the meeting headed by the Chief minister was implemented qua all others except the land of petitioner Society, merely because the petitioner Society's land had been given to DGDC/RIICO. This small piece of land which is claimed by the Society in the facts and circumstances of the case, can very well be restored to the Society and to that extent, land allotted to DGDC can be curtailed without having any adverse impact on the prospects of business of DGDC. Facts have come on record through documents that to start with, DGDC had demanded only 35 Acres of land. This demand was raised from time to time and ultimately, it reached upto 105 Acres. It is also on record that the RIICO had given only 80 Acres of land to DGDC as against the allotment of 105 Acres. In such a situation, if a small piece of land measuring 17 Bighas 9 Biswas out of the land allotted to DGDC is restored back to the petitioner Society it cannot have any adverse impact on the business prospects of DGDC nor the RIICO may have any just objection and the State Government which has already acquiesced with the release of such acquired lands in large number of cases, cannot have any legitimate case to contest the grant of relief to the petitioner Society and the petitioner Society is found to be entitled for the same on the principles of parity as well as equity. 27. 27. The up-shot of the aforesaid discussion is that:- (a) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5481/94 filed by DGDC seeking directions against the respondents to provide an approach road to it, is allowed. It is directed that the respondents may take the help of the experts and find out as to how and in what manner, the approach road can be made available to DGDC on the chunk of land allotted to it and DGDC be provided with the site and facility of approach road on the side of Tonk Road but this approach road would not entail any financial liability on the State of Rajasthan or RIICO and the burden shall be carried on by the DGDC itself. (b) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 105/97 as has been filed by the DGDC against RIICO is allowed. The cancellation order dated 1.10.1996 (Annexure-1) by which the lease had been cancelled, is set aside and it is directed that after complying with the directions issued in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 454/93 at item (c) as under, the remaining land in question be restored to the DGDC for the purpose for which it was allotted so that DGDC may proceed to achieve the purpose of establishing the Gem Stone Industrial Park. (c) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 454/93 filed by the Subhash Sindhi Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. is allowed and the respondents are directed to part with land measuring 17 Bighas 9 Biswas in favour of the petitioner Society and this land would thus stand restored to the Society.' (d) Directions to be carried out as early as possible but in no case later than three months from the date the certified copy of this order becomes available. (e) Parties are left to bear their own costs. In the result, all these three writ petitions are decided and allowed in terms as aforesaid. Parties are left to bear their own costs.DGDC No. 5481/94 Allowed - Cancellation of lease by RICO of land set aside-RICO directed to provide approach road to land-DBCWP No. 454/93 allowed with direction to release 17 Bighas and 9 Biswas of land to petitioner out of land acquired and leased to gem development park. *******