JUDGMENT 1. - This Writ Petition has been filed against the Orders dated 2.6.2011 (Annex. 11 and Annex. 12) passed by the respondents and for seeking a direction to the respondents not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner in the land comprised in Khasara Nos. 294/444, 295/443 and 296/444 ad Measuring 24 Bigha 7 Biswa. 2. The petitioner being a landless person applied for allotment under the provisions of the Rajasthan Colonisation (Allotment and Sale of Government Land in Indira Gandhi Canal Colony Area) Rules, 1975 ('the Rules'). As the petitioner stood in priority, he was allotted 25 Bigha of land in Chak 5 MLK of Tehsil Jhadsana on 28.6.1981 and the petitioner deposited the amount as per Rules. 3. It is claimed that despite allotment Order dated 28.6.1981, the possession of the land in question was not handed-over to the petitioner on the ground that the land allotted was reserved for Forest purposes. The petitioner approached the authorities on several occasions and ultimately, filed application dated 14.12.1990 seeking exchange of the land pursuant to the original allotment dated 28.6.1981. 4. Pursuant to the application, the State Government passed an order on 23.12.1996 and allotted alternative land to the petitioner in chak No. 6 MSR of Tehsil Anoopgarh comprised in Murabba No. 330/425 ad measuring about 24.5 Bigha observing that though the land stands in the name of Forest Department, there was no plantation and the land was not, in possession of the Forest Department. However, the said allotment was again cancelled by Order dated 15.2.1997 by the respondents. 5. The petitioner filed S.B. C.W.P. No. 1453/1997 aggrieved against the Order dated 15.2.1997. An interim order was passed on 7.4.1997 ordering that till such time an alternative land is allotted to the petitioner, the petitioner shall not be dispossessed from the land situated in 6 MSR. The Writ Petition was ultimately disposed of by Order dated 14.1.1999 directing that the authority must first make allotment of the alternative land and thereafter take possession from the petitioner. 6. The petitioner in view of the order passed by this Court in the Writ Petition approached the Hon'ble Revenue (Colonisation) Minister ('the Minister') under Section 83 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 ('the Land Revenue Act') read with Sections 5 and 12 of the Rajasthan Colonisation Act, 1954 ('the Act'). 6. The petitioner in view of the order passed by this Court in the Writ Petition approached the Hon'ble Revenue (Colonisation) Minister ('the Minister') under Section 83 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 ('the Land Revenue Act') read with Sections 5 and 12 of the Rajasthan Colonisation Act, 1954 ('the Act'). The Minister by Order dated 26.7.2000 found that twice the land was allotted to the petitioner, but on both occasions, the land was found to be that of Forest Department and the directions were issued by the High Court and consequently, directed allotment of land comprised in Khasara Nos. 295/443 at Village Anoopgarh "A", 296/444 and 294/444 ad measuring 24 Bigha 7 Biswa by releasing the same from special allotment. 7. Pursuant to the said Order dated 26.7.2000, the Additional Collector (Administration) by his Order dated 12.3.2001 (Annex. 6) directed the Tehsildar (Revenue), Anoopgarh as unden:- " izkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr izkFkZuk&i= ,oa jkT;kns'k fnukad 4-8-2000 dh fpf=r izfr layXu izsf"kr gSaA vr% vki ekStwnk izdj.k dh tkap ij fu;ekuqlkj jkT; vfHkys[k esa vey cjken djus dh dk;Zokgh djsaA " 8. Pursuant to the Order dated 12.3.2001, the petitioner deposited the requisite amount on 19.3.2001 and whereafter the Tehsildar (Revenue), Anoopgarh directed the Patwari, Anoopgarh to handover possession of the land in question and mutate the same in the revenue records. Consequent thereto, the possession of land was handed over and the same was recorded in the name of the petitioner. 9. However, subsequent thereto, by Order dated 31.5.2001, the Additional Collector (Administration) addressed a letter to the Tehsildar (Revenue), Anoopgarh inter-alia indicating as under " mijksDr fo"k;kUrxZr izdj.k esa izklafxd i= dzekad 443 fnukad 12-3-2001 esa vafre iafDr esa jkT; vfHkys[k esa vey cjken djus dh dk;Zokgh fu;ekuqlkj djus dk vafdr fd;k x;k gSA =qfVo'k lacaf/kr deZpkfj;ksa dh Hkwy ls vafdr gks x;k tcfd izkFkZuk&i= ij v|ksgLrk{kjdrkZ }kjk vkids izdj.k dh tkap dj fu;ekuqlkj vfxze dk;Zokgh ds vkns'k@funsZ'k fn;s x;s FksA izkFkZuk&i= ij Hkwfe dCtk nsdj vey cjkcn djus ds vkns'k v|ksgLrk{kjdrkZ }kjk ugha fn;s x;s gSaA " " vr% vkids izlafxd i= fnukad 30-5-2001 ds lkFk layXu izLrqr dkxtkr ewy gh bl i= ds layXu dj ys[kk gS fd bl dk;kZy; dk i= dzekad fofo/k@01@443 fnukad 12-3-2001 dks okfil (With Draw) fy;k tkrk gS mDrkuqlkj dk;Zokgh dj bl dk;kZy; dk voxr djkosaA " 10. Acting on the said letter, the Tehsildar directed the Patwari to take back the possession from the petitioner of the land in question. Pursuant thereto, the revenue entries were again altered by the respondents vide Annexure-10. 11. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition. 12. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Order dated 26.7.2000 passed by the Minister allotting the land in question to the petitioner on a revision filed by the petitioner under Section 83 of the Land Revenue Act, has not at all been disturbed and has not been questioned at any stage by any of the authorities. The direction of the Minister is clear wherein the specific land has been ordered to be allotted to the petitioner. Further the Additional Collector in compliance of the directions issued by the Minister passed the Order dated 12.3.2001 (quoted herein-before). However, it appears that under some mis-apprehension, the Letter dated 31.3.2001 (Annex. 15) has been issued to withdraw the Order dated 12.3.2001 indicating that wrong/unintended order was passed. 13. It is also submitted that a comparison of Letter dated 31.3.2001 (Annex, 15) and Letter dated 12.3.2001 (Annex. 6) would reveal that there is no difference in the contents/intent of both the communications. However, the respondent acting on said communications without providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner has passed the orders impugned altering the revenue entries and seeking back the possession from the petitioner, which is not permissible. 14. It is further submitted that a new stand has been taken in the reply to the Writ Petition for the first time that as the land in question is adjacent to the municipal limit and has been kept reserved for the public purpose from before allotment, it was not justified to allot the said land to the petitioner and looking to the interest of public, the land has been kept reserved for the public purpose. It is contended that even the said stand is factually incorrect, inasmuch as, the respondents have allotted land in the same chak to other landless persons as per material Annex. 14 in this regard. 15. It is prayed that as apparently there is no valid reason for the respondents to withdraw the order and to seek repossession of the land in question, the entire action taken by the respondents deserves to be quashed and set-aside. 16. 14 in this regard. 15. It is prayed that as apparently there is no valid reason for the respondents to withdraw the order and to seek repossession of the land in question, the entire action taken by the respondents deserves to be quashed and set-aside. 16. Learned Counsel for the respondent-State supported the action of the respondents. 17. It was submitted that the Letter dated 12.3.2001 (Annex. 6) was wrongly issued by the Additional Collector and as soon as he became aware of the same, the letter was withdrawn vide Order dated 31.3.2001 and as the land in question has been handed over to the petitioner and mutated based on the Letter dated 12.3.2001, once the Letter dated 12.3.2001 has been withdrawn, the petitioner has no right to remain in possession of the land in question. The stand taken in the reply to the Writ Petition regarding location of the land was reiterated. 18. It was submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief from this Court and Writ Petition deserves to be dismissed. 19. I have considered the rival submissions and have perused the material available on record. 20. A bare perusal of the Order dated 26.7.2000 passed by the Minister reveals that while exercising powers under Section 83 of the Land Revenue Act read with Sections 5 and 12 of the Act on a Revision Petition filed by the petitioner, the Minister on finding that the land was twice allotted to the petitioner and on both occasions as the same was found to be Forest land, the allotment was cancelled and whereafter, pursuant to the directions of this Court passed in S.B. C.W.P. No. 1453/1997 decided on 17.3.1999, the Minister ordered for allotment of 24 Bigha 7 Biswa land to the petitioner; the Additional Collector vide Annex. 6 directed the Tehsildar to comply with the directions issued by the State and clearly observed to examine the matter and mutate the land in the revenue record as per Rules. The order passed by the Minister and the direction given by the Additional Collector were executed and the possession of the land in question was handed over and the same was mutated in the name of the petitioner. The order passed by the Minister and the direction given by the Additional Collector were executed and the possession of the land in question was handed over and the same was mutated in the name of the petitioner. However, by Order dated 31.5.2001, the Order dated 12.3.2001 was sought to be withdrawn by the Additional Collector, which order had already been executed, on the plea that due to mistake it was indicated that the possession of the land be handed over to the petitioner and same be mutated, which direction was not intended to be given. 21. A comparison of the Letters dated 31.5.2001 (Annex. 15) an 12.3.2001 (Annex. 6) reveals that there is apparently no difference in the direction, which the Additional Collector wanted to indicate in his Letter dated 12.3.2001 and the Letter dated 30.5.2001 appears to have been issued only with an intention to withdraw the Letter dated 12.3.2001 without any basis or cogent reason reversing the directions issued by the Additional Collector which resulted in Tehsildar reversing the entries made regarding the land in question in favour of the petitioner.There is substance in the submissions made by learned Counsel for the petitioner that no opportunity of hearing whatsoever was granted to the petitioner before either passing of the Order dated 31.5.2001 and/or while reversing the mutation entries already made in favour of the petitioner. 22. Further when the present Writ Petition was filed, a totally new plea was raised, which was not indicated at any point of time earlier, in the reply which was filed in the year 2006, indicating that the land could not have been allotted to the petitioner. Even in the reply to the Writ Petition, no challenge has been made to the order passed by the Minister and/or the action taken pursuant to the order passed by the Minister. 23. It would be further noticed that besides the fact that orders passed by the Minister was not questioned, the respondents were bound to comply with the directions issued by this Court in S.B. C.W.P. No.1453/1997 and the respondents cannot be heard to contend that the said order of this Court would be flouted by once allotting the land in question and thereafter reversing the same without any consequential order passed by them. The said stand taken by the respondents regarding location of land in question also appears to be baseless in view of the material Annex. 14 produced by the petitioner, wherein the other landless person has been allotted the land in the same area. 24. In view of the above discussion, the Writ Petition is allowed; the Order dated 31.5.2001 (Annex. 15) is set aside and the consequential action of the respondents in passing the Order dated 2.6.2001 (Annex. 11 and Annex. 12), whereby mutation of the land in question has been reversed by the respondents are therefore also quashed and set-aside.No Order as to costs.Petition allowed. *******