Judgment Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.—By way of filing the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dt. 24.01.2004 (Annexure-9) passed by Sub-Divisional Officer, Khajuwala, Bikaner with the further prayer that the allotment made in favour of the petitioner on 09.10.1990 vide Annexure-5 may kindly be confirmed. 2. It is averred in the writ petition that the petitioner moved an application on 18.08.1990 for allotment of 25 bighas of land in Square No.227/25 and 25 bighas of land in Square No.227/33. It is further submitted that he has deposited Rs.500/- as earnest money on 18.08.1990. The petitioner furnished all the requisite requirement for allotment. The application filed by the petitioner was accepted because there was no other application for allotment of the said land. Accordingly, vide allotment order dt. 09.10.1990, the petitioner was allotted 25 bighas of command land in Square No.227/25 and 24 bighas 10 biswas of uncommand land in Square No.227/33 in Chak 28 KJD. It is averred that an amount of Rs.52241/- was required to be deposited by the petitioner, which was determined in accordance with Rule 13A of the Rajasthan Colonisation Act (Allotment & Sale of Government Land in the Indira Gandhi Canal Colony Area) Rules, 1975 (hereafter referred to as “the Rules of 1975” only). Out of the above amount, the petitioner deposited 35% of the amount initially for delivery of possession. After depositing the said amount, the allotment order of the above land was issued on 09.10.1990. 3. According to the petitioner, on account of continuous drought, the petitioner could not paid the remaining installments in time and at last, he deposited Rs.34,411/- being the remaining principal amount and Rs. 22,712/- towards the interest on 27.05.1996. 4. The petitioner has challenged the order dt. 24.01.2004 and the notice dt. 22.10.2003, which was received by him on 19.12.2003 and submitted that this order and notice are violative of principles of natural justice. 5. It is further stated in the writ petition that on 19.12.2003, the petitioner received a notice from the office of Tehsildar (Revenue) Khajuwala, Bikaner that he is required to deposit Rs.2,44,616/- along with the interest. The said notice was in fact issued on 22.10.2003 but upon perusal of this notice, the petitioner was directed to deposit the said amount on 10.12.2003. The said notice was in fact issued on 22.10.2003 but upon perusal of this notice, the petitioner was directed to deposit the said amount on 10.12.2003. It is strange that notice was issued on 22.10.2003 for depositing amount on 10.12.2003, which is totally illegal so also, there was no occasion for the petitioner to appear on scheduled date. 6. According, to the petitioner on 24.01.2004, the Sub Divisional Officer, Khajuwala cancelled the allotment of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has failed to deposit the remaining amount of Rs.2,44,616/-, therefore, allotment made in favour of the petitioner was cancelled in accordance with Rule 17 (8) of the Rules of 1975. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the principles of natural justice were required to be followed by the respondents and even in respect of emergency acquisition, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has taken view that though right to property is not a fundamental right yet depriving a person from his property without giving him reasonable opportunity of being heard when no real emergency exists, is violative of fundamental right because right of being heard before adverse order is passed is a fundamental right. Therefore, the order passed by the S.D.O. suffers from vice of principles of natural justice, so also, the reasons, which is mentioned in the order of cancellation is also untenable because admittedly, the said notice was issued by the Tehsildar (Revenue) on 22.10.2003 and petitioner was required to deposit the said amount on 10.12.2003. However, the said notice was received on 19.12.2003 after expiry of the date for depositing the amount. Therefore, both the orders are invalid. 8. In these circumstances, it is prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order impugned (Annexure-9) dt. 24.01.2004 whereby the allotment was cancelled may be quashed. 9. Learned Dy. Government Advocate Mr. S.N. Tiwari, vehemently opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner was allotted un-command land, which is admitted and out of which 16 bighas of land was converted into command land, therefore, in conformity with the provisions of Rule 17 (4) of the Rules of 1975, the demand has been raised for difference amount. It is also submitted that at the time of filling up the application form, an undertaking was given by the petitioner that any amount which is determined under Rule 17 of the Rules of 1975 will be paid by him. For the said purpose, learned Dy. Government Advocate invited the attention of this Court towards Annexure-1 (para-9). Further, it is submitted by learned Dy. Government Advocate that the land situated in Murabba No.227/25 Killa Nos. 11, 16, 20 to 25 admeasuring 8 bighas and Murabba No.227/33 Killa Nos. 11 to 13 and 18 to 23 admeasuring 8 bighas was converted into the command land, therefore, as per the provisions of Rule 17 (4) of the Rules of 1975, the Tehsildar vide order dt. 15.12.1997 requested the allotting authority to determine the rate of the land after conversion of the same into command land. In pursuance therefore, the allotting authority vide order dt. 31.01.1998 ordered to determine the rate of the land. Thereafter, as per the gazette notification dt. 14.11.1998, the rate of the land in question was determined at Rs.16,358/- per bigha with the increase of 15% per year. Accordingly, notice (Annexure-8) was issued to the petitioner. However, the petitioner failed to deposit the said amount, therefore, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Khajuwala in exercise of the power conferred under Rule 17 (8) of the Rules of 1975 cancelled the allotment. 10. After hearing both the parties and perusing the record, I am of the opinion that initially upon the application filed by the petitioner, he was allotted command land as well as non-command land both, so also, according to condition No.9 of application form (Annexure-1), there was specific undertaking given by the petitioner that if any amount is determined in accordance with Rule 17 of the Rules of 1975, then, he undertakes to deposit the same. The relevant portion of Annexure-1 (para-9) reads as follows :- ß9- vkosnd (1) jktLFkku mifuosÓku vf/kfu;e] 1954 (2) jktLFkku lkekU; mifuosÓku ÓkrZ] 1955 rFkk (3) jktLFkku mifuosÓk (jktLFkku ugj mifuosÓku {ks= ljdkjh Hkwfe dk vkoaVu ,oa foØ;) fu;e] 1975 ds micU/kksa dk ,rn~}kjk ikyu djus dk djkj djrk gS rFkk iwoksZä fu;eksa ds fo"k; 17 ds v/khu Hkwfe fodkl çHkkjh] ;fn dksbZ gks rks rFkk ljdkj }kjk fu;r dh xbZ ljdkjh Hkwfe dh dher dh lank; djus dk ftEek Hkh ysrk gSAÞ 11. In this view of the matter when specific undertaking was given by the petitioner to deposit the said amount as determined under Rule 17 of the Rules of 1975 for the purpose of conversion of land from uncommand to command land, then, he cannot deny to deposit the said amount but similarly the respondents are also under obligation to provide reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before determining the cost of the land after conversion of the land from uncommand to command land in accordance with Rule 17 (4) of the Rules of 1975. However, in this case, upon perusal of Annexures 8 and 9, it is clear that no opportunity whatsoever was given to the petitioner. 12. Therefore, in the interest of justice and while following the principles of natural justice, the notice (Annexure-3) and cancellation order dt. 24.01.2004 (Annxure-9) passed by SDO, Khajuwala are set-aside and the matter is remitted to the respondents with the directions that fresh notice be issued to the petitioner and after providing adequate opportunity of hearing to him, the rate may be determined and petitioner is also directed to deposit the said amount as determined by the allotting authority in accordance with Rule 17 (4) of the Rules of 1975. The respondents are also directed to finalize this matter within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 13. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition is allowed.