JUDGMENT 1. - In both these writ petitions common questions of law and facts are involved, and therefore, both the writ petitions are heard together and disposed of by a common order. 2. Succinctly stated the facts, giving rise to both these writ petitions, are that the petitioners are journalists by profession. When the petitioners came to know that respondent-Municipal Board is making allotment of residential plots to journalists in a colony earmarked for journalists namely Patrakar Colony, both of them submitted separate applications for the allotment of a residential plot. The applications submitted by both the petitioners were scrutinised by the Municipal Board and after completing the requisite formalities, licences were issued to both the petitioners on 21st October, 1991. Subsequent to that, for the land allotted to them, Municipal Board executed a lease-deed in their favour on 31st August, 1994. It appears that the allotments made in favour of the petitioners became an eye storm for their uncle one Mr. Ram Dutt and out of personal vengeance, due to family squabble, he lodged complaint against the allotments of plots to the petitioners before District Collector, Jalore on 5th July, 2001. Taking cognizance of the complaint of Mr. Ram Dutt, Sub-Divisional Officer, Jalore was appointed as an inquiry officer. During the course of inquiry, both the petitioners submitted their reply, wherein locus-standi of the complainant was also questioned. It is also pertinent to mention here that both the petitioners made endeavour for allotment of strip of land, which was appurtenant to the land allotted to them, and the Municipal Board after following the requisite procedure allotted strip of land to them at the prevailing market rate vide order dated 19th November, 1994. When both the petitioners were contemplating to raise construction on the allotted land, there were some genuine difficulties and for which complaints were also lodged by them before the Municipal Board. Be that as it may, both the petitioners applied for grant of permission to raise construction on the allotted plots and requisite permission for raising construction was granted on 8th January, 1996. In terms of the permission granted, the requisite construction could not be carried out by the petitioners due to paucity of funds as the loans were not sanctioned to meet the expenditure for construction. 3. In terms of the permission granted, the requisite construction could not be carried out by the petitioners due to paucity of funds as the loans were not sanctioned to meet the expenditure for construction. 3. In the writ petitions, it is further averred that the District Collector, Jalore ordered inquiry by the Sub-Divisional Officer and thereafter referred the matters to Zila Janabhav Abhiyog Nirakaran and Satarkta Samiti, Jalore (for short, 'the Smiti') being its chairman. The Samiti thereafter called for its meeting on 19th January, 2002 and took a decision to the detriment of both the petitioners for cancellation of land allotted to them by the Municipal Board. The resolution dated 19th January, 2002 was forwarded to the Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Jalore with a direction to cancel the allotment made in favour of the petitioners. While taking cognizance of the resolution of Samiti, the Executive Officer, Municipal Board Jalore by separate orders (Annex.9) in both petitions of even date, cancelled the allotment made in favour of the petitioners. The petitioners have questioned the resolution dated 19th January, 2002 and the consequential order of cancellation of allotment (Annex.9) passed by the Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Jalore precisely on two counts that Samiti was not authorised to take such a decision and Executive Officer, Municipal Board was not competent to pass such an order. Besides that the petitioners have also challenged both these orders on the ground that the orders are in gross violation of principles of natural justice. 4. At the threshold, when the matter came up before this Court, the petitions were admitted and effect and operation of both the impugned orders were stayed. During the pendency of the writ petitions, complainant, Ram Dutt made endeavour to be impleaded as party respondent by filing separate applications in both the petitions. The said applications were disposed of by the Court by declining prayer for impleadment and permitting the complainant to intervene in the matter. On behalf of the respondent-Municipal Board, preliminary reply to the writ petition was submitted and order of cancellation was defended. 5. In the return, the respondent-Municipal Board has pleaded that cancellation orders were issued after making inquiry in adherence of principles of natural justice and the Samiti after considering the report of inquiry issued necessary directions to the Executive Officer, Municipal Board for cancellation of allotment. 5. In the return, the respondent-Municipal Board has pleaded that cancellation orders were issued after making inquiry in adherence of principles of natural justice and the Samiti after considering the report of inquiry issued necessary directions to the Executive Officer, Municipal Board for cancellation of allotment. Precisely impugned orders were stoutly defended on the ground that the income shown by the petitioners for allotment of the said land is not commensurating with their income-tax returns, and therefore, the allotments are vitiated, as they are founded on the mis-representations of the petitioners. With this preliminary reply, the respondents sought dismissal of both the writ petitions. 6. Subsequent to that, an endeavour was made by the petitioners to bring certain documents on record by filing applications and the said applications were allowed by the Court. By the aforesaid applications, the petitioners have placed on record Annexs. 1O to 12 respectively. From a bare perusal of the order (Annex.12) dated 22nd March, 2011, it is crystal clear that in the office file of Municipal Board any order/order-sheet for cancellation of the allotment of lands is not available. 7. Mr. S.G. Ojha, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has strenuously argued that the Samiti has passed the resolution in gross violation of principles of natural justice, and therefore, the said resolution cannot be sustained. Mr. Ojha has urged that the Samiti had no jurisdiction to take a decision to petitioners' detriment, and therefore, the resolution being wholly without jurisdiction, the consequential order cannot be sustained. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also submitted that under Municipal Law, Executive Officer is not authorised to pass order of cancellation of allotment, and therefore, the order of cancellation cannot be sustained. The sum and substance of the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the Samiti as well as the Executive Officer have acted at their mere ipsi dixi without any rhyme or reason and have acted unauthorizedly, while proceeding to cancel the allotments made in favour of the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Ojha, has also submitted that a registered instrument cannot be set at naught by an executive fiat. In support of his contentions, Mr. Ojha has placed reliance on a Division Bench's decision of this Court in case of Padma Devi v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. [1992 (1) WLN 9]. Learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Ojha, has also submitted that a registered instrument cannot be set at naught by an executive fiat. In support of his contentions, Mr. Ojha has placed reliance on a Division Bench's decision of this Court in case of Padma Devi v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. [1992 (1) WLN 9]. In the said decision, while examining the powers of the District Collector under Section 285 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959, held as under:- 6. Now, in the present case, since the foundation on which the order granting the permission raising construction is sought to be stayed is wholly beyond the jurisdiction of the Collector as the action of the sale cannot be touched by the Collector Under Section 285 of the Act. If the Collector required the sale to be undone then the only course open for him was to refer the matter to the Government for cancellation of the sale if it was permissible under the Act or he could have taken appropriate steps for cancellation of the sale-deed. But, in any case, he could not have stayed the operation of the order granting permission to raise construction by the Municipal Board under the purported exercise of jurisdiction under Section 285 of the Act. It is true that under Section 285 of the Act the Collector has the power to interfere if anything, is required to be done in pursuance of the resolution which is likely to cause injury or annoyance to the public or a breach of the peace. But, in the present case, the Collector has stayed the permission granted by the municipality to raise construction on the basis which was not open for him as the sale in the present case was completed in the year 1980. 7. Mr. Bhandari, learned Counsel for the respondents, has invited our attention to a decision of this Court given in Municipal Council, Ajmer v. Narinder Singh (AIR 1982 Rajathan 289) . This case, so far as the present controversy is concerned, has no relevancy in the matter. In this case the interpretation of Section 285 did not directly come up for consideration and Hon'ble Kasliwal, J. (as he then was) only made a reference to the general power to suspend resolutions of the Board. So far as the power of the Collector is concerned the same is not disputed. In this case the interpretation of Section 285 did not directly come up for consideration and Hon'ble Kasliwal, J. (as he then was) only made a reference to the general power to suspend resolutions of the Board. So far as the power of the Collector is concerned the same is not disputed. But, in the present case, the Collector has invoked the power on the basis that the sale was illegal. That was not open for the Collector by reopening the question of the legality of the sale under Section 285. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the learned single Judge does not appear to be correct. 8. Per contra, Mr. Kailash Joshi and Mr. Prashant Sharma appearing for the Municipal Board have submitted that the orders have been passed in strict adherence of law, and therefore, no interference is warranted. Mr. Joshi has also urged that before passing the impugned orders, inquiry was also conducted and on the basis of conclusions of the inquiry, Samiti has adopted resolution for cancellation of allotment and thereupon requisite directions were issued to the Executive Officer, which cannot be faulted. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 10. Upon perusal of the materials available on record and the provisions of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959, in my considered opinion, the Samiti as such had no jurisdiction to draw a resolution for cancellation of allotments made in favour of the petitioners. Factually, it is not in dispute that the lands were allotted to the petitioners by the Municipal Board and lease-deed were also executed, and therefore, before issuing order of cancellation, it was necessary for the respondent-Municipal Board to afford opportunity of being heard to the petitioners. The decision was obviously to petitioners' detriment which ought not to have been taken behind their back. It is trite that principles of natural justice are great humanizing principles and it is necessary for an authority to pass an order against an individual, which visits him with evil and civil consequences, after affording him reasonable opportunity of being heard. From the materials available on record, it is not at all discernible that before issuing the impugned orders opportunity was afforded to the petitioners. Therefore, action of the respondents is vitiated and cannot be sustained. 11. From the materials available on record, it is not at all discernible that before issuing the impugned orders opportunity was afforded to the petitioners. Therefore, action of the respondents is vitiated and cannot be sustained. 11. It is really a matter of grave concern that how the Samiti has directed the Executive Officer to issue order of cancellation of allotment. That apart under which authority of law, the Executive Officer has acted upon the resolution and proceeded to issue the order of cancellation. Under the Municipal Law, Executive Officer is not authorised to take such a decision and only Municipal Board can take such a decision after making thorough scrutiny of the factual aspects of the matter. 12. Thus, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case and the allotment made in favour of the petitioners for the lands in question, in my considered opinion, impugned orders on the face of it are not at all sustainable. The legal infirmity in the orders are writ large and on the basis of dictum of Hon'ble Court in Padma Devi's case (supra), impugned orders are liable to be annulled. 13. The upshot of the above discussion is that both the writ petitions are allowed. The impugned resolution dated 19th January, 2002 by the Samiti and the consequential order of cancellation of allotment in favour of the petitioners passed by the Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Jalore are hereby quashed and set aside. The parties are left to bear their own costs.Writ Petition Allowed. *******