JUDGMENT 1. . - This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners against the respondents on 7-4-92 with a prayer that the order of allotment of 21.14 big has of land may be set aside and quashed and the alleged order dated 29-6-88 passed by the Tehsildar, Pilibanga be quashed and further more, the respondent be directed not to take any action in pursuance of notice dated 13-3- 1992 (Annex. 4) at page 23 etc. 2. It arises in the following circumstances : i) Certain land was allotted permanently to the members of the society of respondent No.5 and out of 10 members of the Society, 5 members Dula Ram, Kana Ram, Lekh Ram, Labhu Ram and Mangu Ram transferred 21 bighas and 14 biswas of their land to Rati Ram . by way of a registered sale deed dated 7-6-75. Before his death, Rati Ram executed a will in favour of the present petitioners. The society was brought into liquidation and its registration was cancelled on 30-6-87. ii) That Halka Patwari asked the petitioners to vacate the land in dispute as that land was declared Government land. Further case of the petitioner is that notice dated 13-3-1992 (Annex. 4) has been issued by the Nayab Tehsildar under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Colonisation Act, 1954 and through that notice the petitioners were asked to vacate the land and hand over the possession to the tahsildar and through that notice, the petitioners were declared trespassers on the disputed land. Further case of the petitioners is that allotment of their land was cancelled by Tahsildar through order dated 29-6-88, but before cancellation of their allotment, they were not heard. Hence that order of cancellation is not sustainable. Hence the present writ petition. 3. Reply to the writ petition was filed on 17-6- 98 by the respondents. It was submitted by the respondents that since registration of the Society was cancelled, therefore, no notice was required to be given as the land in question vested in the Government and, therefore, the notice which should have been given, has been given in the shape of Annex. 4 dated 13-3-92 at page 23. It was further submitted that the land in question vested in the Government and, therefore, no right accrued in favour of the petitioners and hence the present writ petition be dismissed. 4. 4 dated 13-3-92 at page 23. It was further submitted that the land in question vested in the Government and, therefore, no right accrued in favour of the petitioners and hence the present writ petition be dismissed. 4. It may be stated here that in the stay application, through order dated 10-4-92, this Court ordered that the petitioner would not be dispossessed from the land in question and that order was confirmed vide order dated 13-8- 99 till decision of the writ petition. 5. In the writ petition, the only prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that before taking any action in pursuance of notice dated 13-3-92 (Annex.4), the petitioners may be heard. 6. In my opinion, this prayer seems to be reasonable and plausible one and, therefore, it should be accepted and for that the learned counsel for the respondents has no objection. For the reasons mentioned above, the present writ petition is allowed in the manner that in pursuance of notice dated 13-3-92 Annex.4 issued by the Nayab Tehsildar, the petitioner would not be dispossessed until reasonable opportunity of being heard is given by the respondent No.4 who issued notice dated 13-3-92 (Annex.4) and after hearing the petitioners, suitable orders may be passed. 7. It is further made clear that till the final order is passed by the respondent No.4, the petitioners would not be dispossessed. 8. Cost made easy.Petition Allowed. *******