Honble SINGH, J.–This is a writ petition by the petitioner who participated in various international events of Tent Pegging Championship and Equestrian Games, the details of which have been given in Annexure-1, a letter from the Sports Council of Rajasthan dated 27.3.1994 wherein the petitioner has won Gold and Silver Medals both in individual championship and team championship. The details of the same are as follows:- ``1. International Tent Pegging Champ. Headstone, New Jersey (USA) Team Champ. Gold Medal Individual Champ. Silver Medal. 2. International Tent Pegging Champ. 1990 New Jersey (USA) Team Champ. Gold Medal Individual Champ. Gold Medal 3. International Tent Pegging Champ. 1991 New Jersey (USA) Team Champ. Gold Medal. Individual Champ. Gold Medal. 4. The Classic National Equestrian Championship, 1991. Tent Individual Champ. 2nd Position Pegging Team Champ. 2nd Position 5. National Tent Pegging Championship, 1992 Team Champ. Winner. (2). The Government has framed the Rajasthan Colonisation (Allotment and Sale of Government Land in the Indira Gandhi Canal Colony Area) Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as ``the Rules of 1975). Rule 24 of the Rules of 1975 provides as under:- ``Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules the Government may make allotment to any person as a special case. Provided that Government may delegate the powers of allotment in any case or a class of cases under this rule to the colonization commissioner or the Collector or to any other prescribed authority, subject to such terms and conditions as may be prescribed in this behalf. (3). Provided that Government may delegate the powers of allotment in any case or a class of cases under this rule to the colonization commissioner or the Collector or to any other prescribed authority, subject to such terms and conditions as may be prescribed in this behalf. (3). With a view to give effect to Rule 24 of the Rules of 1975, the Government of Rajasthan on 27.7.1982 issued the following circular (Annexure 2):- ^^jktLFkku mifuosku ¼jktLFkku mifuosku {ks= esa ljdkjh Hkwfe dk vkoaVu ,oa foØ;½ fu;e 1975 ds fu;e 24 ds rgr jkT; ljdkj fdlh O;fDr dks foks"k ekeyksa esa Hkwfe vkoafVr dj ldrh gS] ijUrq fu;eksa esa izkof/kr foks"k kfDr;ksa ds mi;ksx ds fy, D;k izfØ;k viuk;h tkuh pkfg;s rFkk fdl izdkj ds ekeyksa esa bu kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx fd;k tkos] dksbZ izko/kku ugha gSA bl lEcU/k esa Li"V o laxr uhfr viukus ds mn~ns; ls jkT; ljdkj ,rn}kjk foks"k vkoaVu ds fy, ;ksX; ekus tkus okys ekeyksa ds fy, fuEufyf[kr ekxZnkZd fl)kUr o izfØ;k r; djrh gS%& 1- foks"k vkoaVu dk ykHk fuEu Jsf.k;ksa ds O;fDr;ksa@laLFkkvksa dks xq.k voxq.k dh iw.kZ tkap ds ipkr fn;k tk;sxk % ¼v½ x x x x ¼c½ x x x x ¼l½ x x x x ¼n½ jktLFkku ds ,sls fuoklh] ftUgksaus vius {ks= esa vUrjkZ"Vªh; Lrj ij [;kfr rFkk ekU;rk izkIr dh gS tSls fd oSKkfud] ys[kd] f[kykMh rFkk ?kkod tks fd Lo;a [ksrh dk /kU/kk viukrk pkgrs gS vkSj dj Hkh ldrs gSA** (4). In pursuance of the aforesaid Rules and the Circular of the Government, the petitioner was allotted land vide order dated 21.7.1994 (Annexure-3). In pursuance of the aforesaid Rules and the Circular of the Government, the petitioner was allotted land vide order dated 21.7.1994 (Annexure-3). The said order reads as follows:- ^^vk;qDr] mifuosku] chdkusjA 21 tqykbZ] 1994 fo"k; %& vUrjkZ"Vªh; Lrj ds f[kykfM;ksa dks d`f"k Hkwfe vkoUVu ckcrA egksn;] mijksDr fo"k;kUrxZr funskkuqlkj ys[k gS fd jktLFkku mifuosku ¼jktLFkku mifuosku {ks= esa ljdkjh Hkwfe dk vkoUVu ,oa foØ;½ fu;e] 1975 ds fu;e 24 ds vUrXZkr jktLFkku ds vUrjkZ"Vªh; Lrj ds f[kykMh] /kkodksa dks foks"k vkoUVu vknsk Øekad ia- 3 ¼149½ jkt-@mi@77 fnukad 27-7-82 ds vuqlkj fuEufyf[kr f[kykMh@/kkodksa dks ,d eqjCck Hkwfe vkjf{kr nj ij fu;ekuqlkj vko.Vu fd;s tkus dh jktdh; Lohd`fr iznku dh tkrh gS%& Ø-la- uke fooj.k 1- Jh jktdqekj ftyk ÖkqaÖkquw 1- uosZ ,fk;kM [ksy ubZ fnYyh esa 1982 esa 5000 ehVj nkSM esa r`rh; LFkku fy;k&&&2- nlosa ,fk;kM [ksy flvksy esa 5000 ehVj nkSM esa prqFkZ LFkku izkIr fd;k 2- dsIVu Jh ujirflag jktiqjksfgr ftyk ikyh 1- gSnjkckn esa vk;ksftr vUrjkZ"Vªh; VsUV isfxax izfr;ksfxrk esa O;fDrxr Li/kkZ esa NBk rFkk Vh izfr;ksfxrk esa jtr ind izkIr fd;kA (5). Thereafter, the petitioner was issued on order (Annexure 4) dated 9.9.1994 for allotment of one Murabba and to appear before the Deputy Commissioner, Colonisation, Nachna for the purposes of allotment. Subsequently, the Assistant Commissioner, Colonisation ordered for the allotment of the land of Namchak 16500 RDDODD (R) murabba No. 80/92 situated at Tehsil Pugal, District Bikaner. Order to that effect has been filed as Annexure 5 dated 28.4.1995. In the meanwhile, the Deputy Secretary vide Annexure 6 dated 21.4.1995 sent a handwritten note stating that he has been directed to inform that operation of the order dated 21.7.1994 has been stayed. The petitioner thereafter approached the Chief Ministers Secretariat by means of representation and was informed vide letter dated 30.5.1995 that the matter is under consideration. When nothing was heard in the matter, the petitioner sent a representation (Annexure 8) for demand of justice but even then nothing favourable happened. (6). The petitioner then filed the present writ petition on 10.4.1997 and on notices being issued, the respondents filed a reply in which interalia it was submitted that the allotment of land to the petitioner has only been stayed and not canceled so far. (7). (6). The petitioner then filed the present writ petition on 10.4.1997 and on notices being issued, the respondents filed a reply in which interalia it was submitted that the allotment of land to the petitioner has only been stayed and not canceled so far. (7). When the matter came up before this court on 9.1.2006, this Court inquired from the Government Advocate as to what has happened in the matter after 21.4.1995 and whether any decision has been taken in the matter as the allotment had only been stayed. It was ordered that the case be listed on 27.1.2006. (8). On 27.1.2006, the Deputy Government Advocate filed an additional affidavit and along with the same has filed the document (Annexure R/1/1), letter of the Deputy Secretary to the Government, Department of Revenue (Colonisation), Jaipur addressed to the Commissioner (Colonisation), Bikaner dated 25.1.2006. (9). As per the communication dated 25.1.2006 (Annexure R/1/1/), the Deputy Secretary has communicated to the Commissioner that in the special category of cases which have been provided under Rule 24 of the Rules of 1975 as per the Circular dated 27.7.1982 (Annexure 2) only such sports persons who have participated and won medals in the Olympics, Common Wealth Games or Asian Games alone are entitled to be considered as eligible for the allotment of the land and only these games would be considered to be international events and, therefore, it was decided by the Government that the allotment made vide order dated 21.7.1994 in favour of the petitioner be quashed. (10). Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the circular 27.7.1982 (Annexure 2) was issued for the purposes of issuing the guidelines in respect of the allotment made under Rule 24 of the Rules of 1975 and para 1 (n) clearly provides that such sports persons in their sphere of activity who have made achievements at the international level and who want to adopt agriculture would be eligible for the allotment. Clause (n) of the circular dated 27.7.1982 reads as follows:- ^^¼n½ jktLFkku ds ,sls fuoklh] ftUgksaus vius {ks= esa vUrjkZ"Vªh; Lrj ij [;kfr rFkk ekU;rk izkIr dh gS tSls fd oSKkfud] ys[kd] f[kykMh rFkk /kkod tks fd Lo;a [ksrh dk /kU/kk viukuk pkgrs gS vkSj dj Hkh ldrs gSaA (11). Clause (n) of the circular dated 27.7.1982 reads as follows:- ^^¼n½ jktLFkku ds ,sls fuoklh] ftUgksaus vius {ks= esa vUrjkZ"Vªh; Lrj ij [;kfr rFkk ekU;rk izkIr dh gS tSls fd oSKkfud] ys[kd] f[kykMh rFkk /kkod tks fd Lo;a [ksrh dk /kU/kk viukuk pkgrs gS vkSj dj Hkh ldrs gSaA (11). It is submitted that under the aforesaid paragraph, the international level has not been restricted only to the Olympics, Common Wealth Games or Asian Games and, therefore, to give a restricted meaning to the aforesaid terms would be contrary to the spirit of the very circular which has been issued to provide an incentive to sportsmen to excel and achieve laurels for the country in international games. (12). It has also been submitted that before issuing the order either staying the allotment vide Annexure 6 or passing the order dated 22.1.2006 Annexure R/1/1/ canceling the allotment, the respondents have not given any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the petitioner to whom the allotment has been made has been deprived of his valuable rights without following the principles of natural justice. (13). Learned Deputy Government Advocate on the other hand has submitted that under Rule 24 of the Rules of 1975, the decision of the Government was taken vide Circular dated 27.7.1982 (Annexure 2) laying down the policy and the Government had decided that so far as the sports persons are concerned only such sports persons who have won medals in Olympics, Asian Games and Common Wealth Games alone would be entitled to the allotment of land under the Rules of 1975. It has, therefore, been submitted that the petitioner did not participate in any of the above international events and, therefore, was not entitled to the allotment of land. (14). I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions. The writ petition could have been decided only on the ground that the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity of showing cause as to why the order of allotment made in his favour vide Annexure 3 should not be quashed or set aside even in the light of the order Annexure R/1/1 which has been passed canceling the allotment but there would be no use in sending the petitioner back to the respondents with a direction to afford him an opportunity of hearing before passing the order. Consequently, the matter is being examined on merits. (15). Consequently, the matter is being examined on merits. (15). As has been quoted above, the relevant provisions of the circular (Annexure-2) dated 27.7.1982 only refer to achievements at international levels in their respective spheres ^^jktLFkku ds ,sls fuoklh] ftUgksaus vius {ks= esa vUrjkZ"Vªh; Lrj ij [;kfr rFkk ekU;rk dh gS tSls fd oSKkfud] ys[kd] f[kykMh rFkk ?kkod tks fd Lo;a [ksrh dk /kU/kk viukuk pkgrs gS vkSj dj Hkh ldrs gSA The decision of the Government as per the Circular dated 27.7.1982 is a conscious decision in which the Government has not confined the meaning of the word ``International Level only to the Olympic Games, Asian Games or Common Wealth Games. Taking into consideration the fact that even apart from the aforesaid three tournaments/games being held at international level, sports activities at international levels have assumed a very wide recognition. Apart from the above, there are the World Cup Tournaments for Football and Hockey, the ICC Champions Trophy and World Cup in Cricket, International Chess Tournaments, Tournaments Billiards and Snooker, The Davis Cup in Tennis and several other games. In case Sunil Gavaskar and Kapil Dev were from Rajasthan and not having won Gold Medals in the Olympics would they not be eligible for having won the World Cup Cricket Tournament in 1983, or Sania Mirza for her achievements in the game of Tennis, or Vishwanathan Anand for his achievements in Chess or Geet Sethi in Billairds and so many others. It was submitted that for his one innings against Sri Lanka in a game played at Jaipur, M.S. Dhoni was awarded a House by the Government of Rajasthan. Be that as it may, if incentives have to be granted to bring out players of class and international repute the giving of a restrictive meaning to the circular would not do any good and runs counter to the spirit of the Rules. (16). Be that as it may, if incentives have to be granted to bring out players of class and international repute the giving of a restrictive meaning to the circular would not do any good and runs counter to the spirit of the Rules. (16). Giving a restricted meaning, to the words International Level (vUrjkZ"Vªh; Lrj) as has been done by the letter dated 25.1.2006 to deny the petitioner his claim to the allotment of land for having won gold and silver medals both in individual championship and team championship in the Tent Pegging and equestrian at the International Tournament held in U.S.A. and elsewhere as stated earlier bringing laurels to the country, right from the year 1990 to 1992 in five events would be contrary to the spirit of the Circular (Annexure 2) and the Rules of 1975 which provide for allotment of the land as a special case for participation and achievements at International Tournaments. This cannot be done without having amended the Circular restricting the eligibility to winning of medals at the Olympic Games, Asian Games and Common Wealth Games. The letter dated 25.1.2006 is liable to be set aside. The words ``International Level (vUrjkZ"Vªh; Lrj) in clause (n) of the Circular dated 27.7.1982 refers not only to Sports persons but also to Scientists and authors as wells. Thus, in their case no such restricted meaning can be given to the said clause as has been done in the case of sports persons. When expert bodies made the recommendations for allotment in each case the same must be considered in the light of the words used or else it could have been provided in the Circular itself to make only those sports persons eligible who have won medals in the Olympic Games, Asian Games or the Common Wealth Games. That not having been done the respondents have misinterpreted the Circular dated 25.1.2006, is liable to be set aside. (17). That not having been done the respondents have misinterpreted the Circular dated 25.1.2006, is liable to be set aside. (17). In my view, therefore, the decision taken by the respondents under order dated 25.1.2006 (Annexure R/1/1) runs contrary to the mandate and the spirit of the Rules 24 and the circular dated 27.7.1982 (Annexure 2) and consequently, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside, international event is an international event which is recognised as such by the Sports Council and the said body in the case of the petitioner has recognised the achievement of the petitioner to be of an international level and it cannot be left to the respondents to sit in judgment over the decision of the Sports Council. (18). This writ petition is consequently allowed. The order dated 25.1.2006 (Annexure R/1/1) and the order dated 21.4.1998 (Annexure 6) are hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to given possession of the land to the petitioner in accordance with the orders Annexure 3, 4 and 5. Since the matter has remained pending for last 12 years since the allotment was made by the Government itself, the respondents are directed to give possession of the land to the petitioner within a period of three months of submission of the certified copy.