Honble KOTHARI, J.–Heard learned counsel for the parties. (2). This petition has been filed by the petitioner Aishwarya College of Education Sansthan inter alia challenging the order of cancellation of allotment of land to the petitioner society, a society registered under the provisions of the Rajasthan Societies Registration Act, 1958 (hereinafter to be referred as the "petitioner society"). (3). The case set up by the petitioner society is that the respondent Urban Improvement Trust, Udaipur (UIT, for short) was initially allotted the land measuring 10,000 Sq. Meters at reserve price of Rs. 60 per Sq. feet in Bhuvana Chittrakut Extension Plan as a result of application of the petitioner for allotting 20,000 sq. meters and upon a representation made in this regard, the respondent UIT allotted 20,000 sq. meters to the petitioner society vide communication dated 19.9.2003. The petitioner society runs an educational institution in Udaipur and had requested for allotment of land in question to the UIT at reserved price. The petitioner thereafter proceeded to request the State Government for further concession in rate of reserved price for the said land. While the representation for reduction of reserved price was pending with the State Government, the petitioner had already started its educational activities and as the premises then available with the petitioner society was falling short of the accommodation required, the petitioner society shifted its educational institution in question to a new building situated at Anand Plaza, Aiyad, Udaipur. The said premises are owned by one of the Directors of the petitioner society Ms Seema Singh. She already owned a part of the said premises and purchased the remaining half from a trust known as M/s Aishwarya Technical Educational Trust. The petitioner on 1.3.2005 requested the respondent UIT to allot another land of same measurement 20,000 sq. meters in another area of Bhuvana Chittrakut Extension Plan namely Roop Nagar, Panchayat Mandal, Bhuvana, Udaipur. (4). The land allotment committee of UIT, Udaipur considered the case of the petitioner for fresh allotment and vide Annex. 10 dated 17.3.2005 (Item No. 10, Page-51) decided to allow such alternative land in the same area of 20,000 sq. meters at reserved price in favour of the petitioner. The said decision of the land allotment committee was confirmed by the respondent UIT in its general body meeting held on 22.3.2005 vide Annex. 10 dated 17.3.2005 (Item No. 10, Page-51) decided to allow such alternative land in the same area of 20,000 sq. meters at reserved price in favour of the petitioner. The said decision of the land allotment committee was confirmed by the respondent UIT in its general body meeting held on 22.3.2005 vide Annex. 11 (Item No.3) confirming the decision taken by the land allotment committee on 17.3.2005. (5). The petitioner has further stated in the writ petition that vide Annexure 12 dated 15.4.2005, the Secretary of UIT, Udaipur informed the petitioner that the earlier allotment made in favour of the petitioner already stood cancelled on its own on account of non deposit of the money against that. In the same communication, it was also conveyed to the petitioner that the allotment made in favour of the petitioner by the land allotment committee on 17.3.2005 also stood cancelled. The impugned order Annexure 13 dated 15.4.2005 passed by the Secretary, UIT Udaipur states firstly that the allotment made in favour of the petitioner on 15.7.2003 stood automatically cancelled and further, the decision taken by the land allotment committee on 17.3.2005 allotting another piece of land in the same area admeasuring 20,000 sq. meters on 17.3.2005 was also cancelled because as per the report of the Tehsildar, it was found that the petitioner society was already running an educational institution earlier in Anand Plaza, Aiyad, Udaipur and thereafter in the new premises at 1-4 D, Adarsh Nagar, University Road, Udaipur in the rented premises and since the petitioner had misrepresented these facts before the respondent UIT, the UIT decided to cancel the allotment made in favour of the petitioner and not to take any further action in pursuance of decision dated 17.3.2005 allotting such alternative land to the petitioner. The said decision of the Secretary, UIT Udaipur dated 15.4.2005 revoking the allotment was confirmed by the general body meeting of the UIT, Udaipur on 18.6.2005 vide Annex.14 on record (Item No. 11 on page 81-82 of the paper book). (6). The said decision of the Secretary, UIT Udaipur dated 15.4.2005 revoking the allotment was confirmed by the general body meeting of the UIT, Udaipur on 18.6.2005 vide Annex.14 on record (Item No. 11 on page 81-82 of the paper book). (6). Being aggrieved by the said decision of the respondent UIT, the petitioner society has approached this Court challenging such cancellation of allotment inter alia on the following grounds: (i) That the impugned order of cancellation of allotment was passed without complying with the principles of natural justice as the petitioner was not given any show cause notice and an opportunity of hearing before cancellation of allotment made in its favour; (ii) That the petitioner society cannot be said to have owned any other land in the same area by way of allotment by respondent UIT or otherwise for running such educational institution as the premises where the educational society was being run was taken on rent / lease by the petitioner society and that the action of cancellation of allotment made by UIT on 17.3.2005 and confirmed and approved on 22.3.2005 could be cancelled only by the Divisional Commissioner in exercise of powers conferred upon him under Rule 30 of the Rajasthan Improvement Trust (Disposal of Urban Land) Rules, 1974 and in the absence of any statutory power vested in the respondent UIT, the respondent UIT itself could not review or withdraw its order of allotment made in favour of the petitioner society. (7). Canvassing his arguments, Mr. Vikas Balia, learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the alleged reasons furnished by the respondent UIT for cancellation of allotment made in favour of the petitioner society were absolutely incorrect as neither the petitioner society could be said to be running the educational institution in its own premises which were in fact being run in rented premises under a lease and licence agreement Annex.20 dated 28.9.2004 executed by Smt. Seema Singh in favour of the petitioner society. He further urged that the character of the petitioner society having a separate legal entity being registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act would not be taken to be the same as that of the individual who had executed the lease and licence agreement in favour of the petitioner society even though such person happens to be a Director in the petitioner society as they are two separate legal entities and one could not be substituted for the another. He brought to the attention of the Court, the condition contained in Circular dated 14.2.2005 to the effect that before a society could apply for allotment of land at concessional rate, it should have existed as such at least for a period of three years. He thus urged that if the petitioner society would not have been running an educational society before applying for allotment of land to the respondent UIT, running its educational institution for a period of at least three years, it would not be entitled to allotment at concessional rate and if it has run such institution for more than three years, in the present case, the respondent UIT has raised objection to its such running of educational institution in rented premises and has taken it to be running in its own premises and therefore, has cancelled its allotment on this very ground. He submits that it is like a catch-22 situation. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, is that respondent UIT could not have cancelled the allotment on the said ground. He further urged that not only the principles of natural justice have been breached by the respondent -UIT in the present case as the right or interest created in favour of the petitioner society by allotment of land in favour of the petitioner has been taken away by it by an ex- parte order passed against the petitioner society but also the reasons assigned for the same are also not sustainable in the eye of law, and therefore, such impugned order deserves to be quashed by this Court. (8). The submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner are opposed by learned counsel appearing for the respondent UIT. (8). The submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner are opposed by learned counsel appearing for the respondent UIT. Learned counsel for the respondent -UIT urged that the petitioner society has sought to misrepresent and mislead the respondent UIT by not fully and truly disclosing that it was running an educational institution in the premises owned by it. The learned counsel for the respondent UIT tried to explain his submission by saying that the lease agreement in question Annex.20 was executed by Ms Seema Singh, the owner of the premises in question situated at Adarsh Nagar, University Road, Udaipur in favour of the petitioner where she herself was one of the Directors of the petitioner society and, therefore, it was a camouflage and sought to be given the cover of legal sanctity and thus, the conditions for allotment of land at concessional rate are violated by the petitioner. He urged that according to Rule 19 (5) the allotment made in favour of the petitioner was not justified. The said Rule 19(5) of the Rules of 1974 is reproduced hereunder for ready reference :- "Rule 19. Allotment of land to Institutions other than Charitable and Public Institutions.- Land shall be allotted to institutions other than public and charitable institutions on the following terms and conditions provided that the land shall revert to the Trust in case these conditions are not fulfilled by the allottee: (1)- ................... (2)- ................. (3)- ............... (4)- ............... (5)- That the institution to whom such land is allotted has not acquired any land either by allotment or otherwise at the place in the State where the land is proposed to be allotted. (6)- ..................... (7)- .................... (8)- That the land so allotted shall not be transferable either by sale or otherwise to any one, or liable to any encumbrances before or after the completion of building without permission of the Trust. (9)- ........................." (9). He submitted that since the petitioner Society had acquired another land though not by way of allotment by UIT but otherwise in the State where the land is proposed to be allotted its case was hit by Rule 19(5) and thus, the cancellation of allotment made by the UIT was justified. (9)- ........................." (9). He submitted that since the petitioner Society had acquired another land though not by way of allotment by UIT but otherwise in the State where the land is proposed to be allotted its case was hit by Rule 19(5) and thus, the cancellation of allotment made by the UIT was justified. He further urged that there was no requirement of complying with the principles of natural justice; as the allotment made in favour of the petitioner on 17.3.2005 confirmed by general body meeting of UIT on 22.3.2005 was never communicated to the petitioner and thus, no right came to be vested in the petitioner Society and thus, its cancellation without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner was also proper and justified. On the question of power of cancellation of allotment vested in the Divisional Commissioner under Rule 30 of the said Rules, learned counsel for the respondent UIT again urged that since decision of allotment was not communicated to the petitioner, there was no occasion for cancellation by the Divisional Commissioner. (10). I have heard the learned counsel at length and perused the record. (11). As far as the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that since the petitioner Society had already held a land in the same place namely Udaipur and therefore, it was not entitled to be allotted the land in violation of Rule 19(5), the said contention need not detain this Court for long. There is no document on record to indicate that the premises where the petitioner Institution was running the educational institution in question were owned by it. Undoubtedly, without any fear of contradiction, the petitioner Society is a separate legal entity registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act and has a separate and distinct legal character. Merely because it takes on rent the premises, the owner of which happens to be one of the Directors of the petitioner Society, it does not render such lease agreement a sham or a camouflage, to say the least. The said lease agreement is not challenged by anybody nor learned counsel for the respondent UIT has sought to brand it as a sham or void ab-initio. Therefore, this reason assigned for cancellation of allotment of land in favour of the petitioner is not at all sustainable in the eye of law. (12). The said lease agreement is not challenged by anybody nor learned counsel for the respondent UIT has sought to brand it as a sham or void ab-initio. Therefore, this reason assigned for cancellation of allotment of land in favour of the petitioner is not at all sustainable in the eye of law. (12). Another contention raised by the learned counsel for the respondent that since the decision of allotment of land in question to the petitioner was not communicated to the petitioner and therefore was an in- house affair of the respondent UIT and was not given effect to, such allotment and cancellation of such allotment by the impugned decision dated 15.4.2005 was proper, also does not impress this Court at all. Undeniably, the decision of allotment of the land in question was taken by the Land Allotment Committee on 17.3.2005 vide Annexure-10. The said committee was informed of all the relevant facts including the fact of running of educational institution by the petitioner Society in the rented premises. The said decision was confirmed by the general body meeting of respondent UIT vide Annexure-11 dated 22.3.2005. Both these decision contained in the public documents namely the decisions of the UIT, Udaipur cannot be said to be a secret or in-house affair of the respondent UIT and right to get the lease deed executed in pursuance of these decisions by the respondent UIT certainly came to be vested in the petitioner Society. By these two decisions a valuable right of property has been created in favour of the petitioner Society and the same can be revoked or cancelled only by following due process of law. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent UIT that in the absence of communication of these decisions to the petitioner, the respondent UIT could decide not to give effect to the same hardly holds any water and the said contention is also liable to be rejected and the same is accordingly hereby rejected. The corollary argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner of non-compliance of the principles of natural justice before divesting the petitioner of its valuable right vested in it by virtue of the decisions Annexure-10 dated 17.3.2005 and Annexure-11 dated 22.3.2005 inter alia deserves to be accepted. (13). The corollary argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner of non-compliance of the principles of natural justice before divesting the petitioner of its valuable right vested in it by virtue of the decisions Annexure-10 dated 17.3.2005 and Annexure-11 dated 22.3.2005 inter alia deserves to be accepted. (13). Another contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner with respect to Rule 30 of the Rules of 1974 that Divisional Commissioner alone had the power to cancel or rescind wholly or in part any action or proceeding taken or contract entered into by the trust regarding such transfer of land or may revise or modify the order or give any other direction as it may deem fit also has substantial force. In the absence of any specific power to review its own decision, the respondent UIT could not have reviewed, revoked or withheld its order of allotment of land in question in favour of the petitioner. It is settled position in law that the power to review a decision, is a creation of statute and no inherent power of review can be said to be vested with an authority unless the statute confers such power upon such authority. The wide powers to cancel, rescind, modify or revive the orders passed by the UIT have been vested in Divisional Commissioner alone under Rule 30. As far as Rajasthan Improvement Trust (Disposal of Urban Land) Rules, 1974 are concerned, it is not in dispute that the allotment of land in question was made under these very rules and these rules do not vest any power of review with the Urban Improvement Trust itself. (14). Consequently, this writ petition deserves to be allowed and the same is accordingly allowed. The impugned decision of respondent UIT Annexure-13 dated 15.4.2005 and Annexure-14 dated 18.6.2005 in so far as it concerns the petitioner Society are quashed. The respondent UIT is directed to take further steps for executing the lease deed in favour of the petitioner Society for the said land in question alloted to it vide Annexure-10 dated 17.3.2005 and affirmed by is general body meeting vide Annexure- 11 dated 22.3.2005 in so far as it concerns the case of the petitioner expeditiously, within a period of three months from today. (15). With these observations, the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.