JUDGMENT : M.N. Bhandari, J. 1. By these writ petitions, a challenge is made to the action of the respondent-Jaipur Development Authority (for short "the JDA") asking the petitioner-company to surrender 200 ft. wide strip of land adjoining Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Jaipur. An order passed under Section 90B of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (for short "the Act of 1956") has been referred to render demand of surrender of land as infructuous and thereby to regularise in favour of the petitioner-company in pursuance of the order dated 22nd April, 2000. A challenge is also made to the orders dated 15th January, 2002 and 2nd December, 2002 issued by the Urban Development Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur. 2. In the connected writ petition, challenge is made to the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Development Authority. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE SET OUT BY THE PETITIONER-COMPANY: 3. Ramjipura Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti Limited (for short "the samiti") floated a scheme in the name of Lal Bahadur Nagar after purchasing an agricultural land through registered sale deeds dated 28th July, 1966 and 6th February, 1970. The land was not under the acquisition thus after verifying all necessary facts, the petitioner-company took 'pattas' from the samiti. Dr. Kailash Garg, Director of the Company submitted representation for regularisation of land for establishment of Hospital-cum-Research Centre. After considering all the aspects, the Government, vide its order dated 22nd April, 2000, directed the JDA to regularise the land for establishment of Hospital-cum-Research Centre under the captioned "International Hospital (NRI Project)". The JDA has avoided compliance of the order passed by the State Government on one or the other ground. It was given out that the land in question is on 200 ft. wide strip adjoining JLN Marg, kept for institutional purpose. The land aforesaid cannot be used other than for institutional purpose. The proposal given by the petitioner-company was earlier rejected by the JDA on 15th September, 1999. In view of subsequent development, the JDA was under an obligation to regularise the land in compliance of the order passed by the Government dated 22nd April, 2000. The respondents did not regularise the land despite it was to be used for the institutional purpose i.e. to establish a Hospital-cum-Research Centre. In the similar manner, land was allotted to Escort Hospital and also G.E. Capital, etc. The respondents did not regularise the land despite it was to be used for the institutional purpose i.e. to establish a Hospital-cum-Research Centre. In the similar manner, land was allotted to Escort Hospital and also G.E. Capital, etc. The use of land by hospital is considered to be for institutional purpose thus it should have been regularised in favour of the petitioner-company also. The respondents issued an order that no regularisation/allotment of land be made, if falling in 200 ft. wide strip adjoining JLN Marg. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner-company submits that pattas were issued by a Co-operative Society, which purchased the land through registered sale deeds. They made an application for conversion of the land and even the amount for it was also deposited. The receipt of the amount was acknowledged by the respondents thus land got converted. 5. The respondents even ignored subsequent orders passed under Section 90B of the Act of 1956. Therein, rights of the petitioner-company were safeguarded while vesting the land in the JDA. The petitioner-company, being patta-holder, was entitled to get allotment pursuant to the order passed under Section 90B of the Act of 1956. The respondents ignored the aforesaid while passing the impugned order asking the petitioner-company to surrender 200 ft. wide strip of land adjoining JLN Marg for the institutional purposes. The respondents issued orders on 15th January, 2002 and 2nd December, 2002 where a policy decision was taken for surrender of 200 ft. wide strip of land adjoining JLN Marg. The order aforesaid has been challenged as the Government has no authority to direct for surrender of the land, rather, it can make acquisition, if required. 6. It is further stated that even the lands acquired by the Government have been regularised pursuant to various circulars issued from time to time. The land of the petitioner-company was not acquired, rather, it is in their possession pursuant to the pattas issued by the society. The order dated 15th January, 2002 and subsequent order dated 2nd December, 2002 for surrender of 200 ft. wide strip of land adjoining JLN Marg are illegal. A citizen cannot be deprived of his rights in the property. 7. Learned counsel further submits that Government had issued an order on 22nd April, 2000 for regularisation of land in favour of the petitioner-company but it was subsequently nullified without providing an opportunity of hearing. wide strip of land adjoining JLN Marg are illegal. A citizen cannot be deprived of his rights in the property. 7. Learned counsel further submits that Government had issued an order on 22nd April, 2000 for regularisation of land in favour of the petitioner-company but it was subsequently nullified without providing an opportunity of hearing. In view of the above, Article 14 of the Constitution of India has been violated. Hence, on the aforesaid ground also, impugned orders deserve to be set aside. 8. A specific reference of order dated 17th April, 2000 at Annexure-28 has been given where even the JDA made recommendation for regularisation of land in favour of the petitioner-company. The only issue was as to on what rate, regularisation should be made. The decision aforesaid should have been implemented in the manner it was done in other cases, however, ignoring the aforesaid, the Government subsequently issued orders for surrender of land. 9. A reference of Annexure-34 dated 31.10.2002 has been given where JDA was asked to take steps pursuant to the earlier decision of the Government. The order at Annexure-36 dated 20.02.2003 has also been referred where the Government again asked to send proposal for regularisation of land in favour of petitioner-company. No action was taken by the JDA, rather, wall erected by the petitioner-company was demolished unauthorisedly. The petitioner-company approached Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Development Authority by maintaining a reference. It was not decided favourable to them in regard to 200 ft. strip of land adjoining JLN Marg thus by a separate writ petition, two orders of the Tribunal were challenged and is otherwise heard along with this writ petition. 10. Learned counsel for petitioner-company lastly made reference of the representation dated 28th December, 2004 where prayer was made to regularise the land and therein, a complete description along with history of the case was given. A prayer is made to allow the writ petitions and set aside the orders under challenge. 11. No other argument has been raised by learned counsel for the petitioner-company for challenge to the action of the respondents. 12. Learned Additional Advocate General Shri Rajendra Prasad and Shri Rinesh Gupta have opposed the writ petitions. It is submitted that after the order under Section 90B(2) of the Act of 1956, no right remains with the petitioner-company to seek the prayer made in these writ petitions. 12. Learned Additional Advocate General Shri Rajendra Prasad and Shri Rinesh Gupta have opposed the writ petitions. It is submitted that after the order under Section 90B(2) of the Act of 1956, no right remains with the petitioner-company to seek the prayer made in these writ petitions. The land in dispute resumed in the JDA pursuant to the order dated 19th May, 2000 thus any order passed prior to it in the shape of recommendation cannot have any sanctity. 13. It is further submitted that Board of the Infrastructure Development and Investment Promotion ("BIDI") vide order dated 27th December, 2004 at Annexure-41 also considered and rejected the proposal given by the petitioner-company. The aforesaid order has not been challenged thus it attained finality. The earlier order passed by the Government and relied upon by the petitioner-company has no legal sanctity. In view of the above, prayer made by the petitioner-company deserves to be rejected. A reference of the judgment of this court in the case of Maha Laxmi Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti Ltd. v. The State of Rajasthan & Anr., SB Civil Writ Petition No.696/1986, decided on 23rd July, 1990 has been given. It is to show a direction to keep 200 ft. wide strip of land adjoining JLN Marg for institutional purpose. 14. The action of the respondents so as orders passed on 15th January and 2nd December, 2002 are in consonance to the judgment aforesaid. In view of the aforesaid orders, no opportunity of hearing was required to be given to the petitioner-company. The letter dated 22nd April, 2000 has not created any right in favour of the petitioner-company. The Deputy Secretary, Urban Development Department had no authority to make recommendation for allotment or regularisation of land in view of Section 54 of the Jaipur Development Authority Act, 1982 (for short "the Act of 1982") when he was not even aware about title of the land and its conversion. By the aforesaid order, a direction was given to the JDA firstly to verify title of the land and then make conversion of land for institutional purpose. The letter dated 22nd April, 2000 relied upon by the petitioner-company is not absolute in its terms, rather, it was issued with certain riders and directions to the petitioner-company so as the JDA which were not complied. The letter dated 22nd April, 2000 relied upon by the petitioner-company is not absolute in its terms, rather, it was issued with certain riders and directions to the petitioner-company so as the JDA which were not complied. Thus there was no need even to recall the order aforesaid after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner-company. A prayer is made to dismiss the writ petitions. 15. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 16. Brief facts of the case have already been given thus need not to be reiterated. This court would consider the documents referred by the parties during course of the arguments. The land in dispute was initially purchased by a Co-operative Society under registered sale deeds and the petitioner-company was given pattas of the land thereupon. The petitioner-company made an application for regularisation/allotment of land. 17. Learned counsel for petitioner-company has referred documents to show conversion of land but other than the proceedings, final order of conversion of land could not be shown. The perusal of the documents referred by the petitioner-company do not show conversion of land though charges for it may have been deposited. It makes recommendation and order to convert the land but could not be referred. If an order of conversion of land would have been passed then the proceedings initiated by Tehsildar under Section 90(B)(1) and (2) would have been contested on the ground that it is no more an agricultural land but no such contest was made. The order under Section 90B(1) and (2) of the Act of 1956 was thus passed. 18. Learned counsel for petitioner-company could not refer document to show conversion of land either for residential or for institutional purposes though reference of charges deposited from time to time for conversion of land has been given. In view of the above, land in dispute was not converted for which the petitioner-company is seeking allotment of land. 19. A further reference of the order passed under Section 90B of the Act has been given. The perusal of order dated 19th May, 2000 passed by the competent authority shows it to be at the instance of Tehsildar. It was alleged that land in dispute has been used for non-agricultural purpose thus be resumed in favour of the JDA. 19. A further reference of the order passed under Section 90B of the Act has been given. The perusal of order dated 19th May, 2000 passed by the competent authority shows it to be at the instance of Tehsildar. It was alleged that land in dispute has been used for non-agricultural purpose thus be resumed in favour of the JDA. It was pursuant to Section 90B (1) and (2) of the Act of 1956. The provision of Section 90B(1) to (6), as was then existing, is quoted hereunder for ready reference: "90-B. Termination of rights and resumption of land in certain cases.-(1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Act and the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (Act No. 3 of 1955) where before the commencement of the Rajasthan Laws (Amendment) Ordinance, 1999 (Rajasthan Ordinance No. 3 of 1999) any person, holding any land for agricultural purposes in such Urbanisable limits, of an urban area, as may be notified from time to time by the sate government by notification in the official gazette, has used or has allowed to be used such land or part thereof, as the case may be, for non-agricultural purposes or, has parted with possession of such land or part thereof, as the case may be, for consideration by way of sale or agreement to sell and/or by executing power of attorney and/or will or in any other manner, for purported non-agricultural use, the rights and interest of such person in the said land or holding or part thereof, as the case may be, shall be liable to be terminated and such land shall be liable to be resumed. (2) Where any land has become liable to be resumed under the provisions of sub-section (1), the Collector or the officer authorised by the State Government in this behalf, shall serve notice, calling upon such person to show cause why the said land may not be resumed summarily, and among other things, such notice may contain the particulars of the land, cause of proposed action, the place, time and date, where and when the matter shall be heard. (3) When the tenant or the holder of such land or any person duly authorised by him, as the case may be, makes an application to the Collector or the officer authorised by the State Government in this behalf, expressing his willingness to surrender his rights in such land, with the intention of developing such land for housing or Commercial purposes, the Collector or officer authorised by the State Government in this behalf, shall upon being satisfied about the willingness of such person, order for termination of rights and interest of such person in the said land and order for resumption of such land. (4) The proceedings in the matter shall be conducted summarily and shall ordinarily be concluded within a period of sixty days from the first date of hearing specified in the notice served under sub-section (2). (5) Where, after hearing the parties, the Collector or the officer authorised by the State Government in this behalf, is of the opinion that the land is liable to be resumed under sub-section (1), he shall after recording reasons in writing, order for termination of rights and interest of such person in the said land and order for resumption of the said land. (6) The land so resumed under sub-section (3) and (5) shall vest in the State free from all encumbrances and shall be deemed to have been placed at the disposal of the concerned local authority under section 102-A of this Act with effect from the date of passing such order: Provided that the land surrendered under sub-section (3) above, shall be made available to the person, who surrenders the land, for its planned development in accordance with the rules, regulation and bye-laws applicable to the local body concerned, for housing or commercial purposes." 20. Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 90B of the Act of 1956 have been invoked in these cases. The proceedings were initiated at the instance of the Tehsildar, however, arguments have been made as if the order is under Section 90B(3) of the Act of 1956. Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 90B of the Act of 1956 have been invoked in these cases. The proceedings were initiated at the instance of the Tehsildar, however, arguments have been made as if the order is under Section 90B(3) of the Act of 1956. Under Section 90B(3) of the Act of 1956, an application is made by the land-holder to allow use of land for non-agricultural purpose and thereupon it is dealt with as per sub-section (6) of Section 90B of the Act of 1956, whereas, an order under Section 90B (1) and (2) is dealt with as per sub-sections (4) and (5). 21. The order dated 19th May, 2000 is not under Section 90B(3) of the Act of 1956. It was not at the instance of the khatedar but Tehsildar alleging use of land for nonagricultural purpose. On an order under Section 90B(1) & (2) of the Act of 1956, pattas of land cannot be claimed as a matter of right as otherwise it can be on an order under Section 90B(3) of the Act of 1956. 22. The order, however, makes reference about societies for apprehending action against rights of the patta-holders. The order passed by the competent authority shows observation for issuance of pattas but it cannot be read contrary to Section 90B(2) and (5) of the Act of 1956. The petitioner-company did not even approach the JDA for issuance of pattas and it seems to be for the reason that order dated 19th May, 2000 was under Section 90B(1) and (2) of the Act of 1956 and not under sub-section (3). The order aforesaid has attained finality as it has not been challenged. The petitioner-company was throughout pursuing their case for regularisation of land pursuant to the pattas issued by a Cooperative Society. The recommendation was made by the Government in favour of the petitioner-company. The order aforesaid has attained finality as it has not been challenged. The petitioner-company was throughout pursuing their case for regularisation of land pursuant to the pattas issued by a Cooperative Society. The recommendation was made by the Government in favour of the petitioner-company. The prayer has been made in reference to it but the letter dated 22nd April, 2000, which contain certain conditions, is quoted hereunder for ready reference: jktLFkku ljdkj uxjh; fodkl foHkkx Øeakd i0 6 13 ufo@3@99 t;iqj] fnuakd 22-04-2000 vkns'k xxZ gkWfLiVy ,oa fjlpZ bULVhV~;wV ds }kjk yky cgknqj uxj] tokgj yky usg: ekxZ] t;iqj fLFkr Hkw[k.M ij yxHkx 20]000 oxZ xt d`f"k Hkwfe ij gkWfLiVy ,oa fjlpZ laLFkku LFkkfir djus gsrq jkT; ljdkj dks vkosnu fd;k x;kA jkT; ljdkj }kjk izdj.k ij fopkj dj mDr Hkwfe ij xxZ gkWfLiVy ,oa fjlpZ baLVhV~;wV dks fuEukafdr 'krksZa ij gkWfLiVy ,oa fjlpZ laLFkku LFkkfir djus dh ,rn }kjk Lohd`fr iznku dh tkrh gS& 1 & laLFkku }kjk crk;s x;s mDr Hkw[k.M ds LokfeRo dh tkap Ákf/kdj.k }kjk vius Lrj ij dh tkosA 1 & pwafd orZeku bl Hkwfe dh Ád`fr d`f"k Hkwfe gS] vr% bl Hkwfe dks ÁFkxr% vkoklh; Hkwfe esa ifjofrZr fd;k tkosxkA 2 & bl Hkwfe dks d`f"k Hkwfe ls vkoklh; Hkwfe esa ifjofrZr fd;s tkus gsrq t;iqj fodkl Ákf/kdj.k }kjk fu/kkZfjr nj ds vuqlkj ÁkFkhZ laLFkk }kjk fu;eu 'kqYd tek djok;k tkosxkA 3 & vkoklh; Hkwfe esa ifjorZu ds mijkar bl Hkwfe dk laLFkkfud Hkwfe esa Hkw & mi;ksx ifjorZu fd;k tkosxkA 4 & laLFkkfud Hkw & mi;ksx ifjorZu gsrq ÁkFkhZ la[;k }kjk vkjf{kr vkoklh; nj dh 20 Áfr'kr jkf'k Hkw & mi;ksx ifjorZu 'kqYd ds :i esa t;iqj fodkl Ákf/kdj.k esa tek djokbZ tkosxhA 5 & lEcfU/kr laLFkk }kjk t;iqj fodkl Ákf/kdj.k esa bl Á;kstukFkZ uD'ks vuqeksnu gsrq ÁLrqr fd;s tkus ij t;iqj fodkl Ákf/kdj.k }kjk Hkou ds ckgjh Lo:i Ákf/kdj.k ds Hkou fu;eksa@fofu;eksa ds vuqlkj fu;ekuqlkj vuqeksnu ds mijkUr gh Hkou dk fuekZ.k fd;k tkosxkA vkKk ls gj 23. The perusal of the letter reveals recommendation without verification of title of the land and its conversion. The letter aforesaid was without authority of law as allotment and regularisation of land remains with the JDA pursuant to Section 54 of the Act of 1982. It is not by the Government. The Government can take policy decision for its general application. The JDA was directed to look into the matter for carrying out the directions. The letter aforesaid was without authority of law as allotment and regularisation of land remains with the JDA pursuant to Section 54 of the Act of 1982. It is not by the Government. The Government can take policy decision for its general application. The JDA was directed to look into the matter for carrying out the directions. Subsequent to the order dated 22nd April, 2000, an order under Section 90B(2) of the Act of 1956 was passed. The land was resumed in favour of JDA. On vesting of the land in the JDA, letter dated 22nd April, 2000 lost its sanctity as now allotment can be made pursuant to Section 54 of the Act of 1982. 24. Learned counsel for petitioner-company has also made reference of certain circulars to seek regularisation of land. It is for institutional purpose. 200 ft. wide land adjoining JLN Marg and can be used only for institutional purposes in view of the order passed by this court in the case of Mahalaxmi Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti Limited v. Shri NK Verma & Ors., SB Civil Contempt Petition No.345/1991, decided on 24th April, 1992. The orders dated 15th January, 2002 and 2nd December, 2002 have been issued for surrender of the land. The orders aforesaid were for general application and do not apply to the cases in hand. The land in dispute resumed in favour of JDA vide order dated 19th May, 2000 under Section 90B(1) and (2) of the Act of 1956 thus surrender was not even required as land was no more of the society and thus not even of the petitioner-company. The challenge to the orders dated 15th January, 2002 and 2nd December, 2002 are of no consequence, in view of the above. 25. The question of acquisition of land comes only when it does not vest in the JDA. In the instant case, the land was resumed and vested in the JDA. 26. Learned counsel for petitioner-company has made reference of a circular dated 25.09.1999 where regularisation of land has been allowed even after acquisition, ceiling, agreement to sale of land, etc. It does not make a reference of a land resumed under Section 90B(2) of the Act of 1956. If the rate given therein is applied then the regularisation of 20000 sq.yard land would be at a meager amount affecting public exchequer thus court would not pass any order for it. It does not make a reference of a land resumed under Section 90B(2) of the Act of 1956. If the rate given therein is applied then the regularisation of 20000 sq.yard land would be at a meager amount affecting public exchequer thus court would not pass any order for it. 27. The issue of discrimination is not otherwise made out as the petitioner-company has failed to refer regularisation of land after an order under Section 90B(1) and (2) of the Act of 1956. 28. In view of the above, I do not find any ground to accept the prayer made by the petitioner-company to regularise the land as it vested in the JDA in the year 2000 itself. 29. In the light of the discussion made above, I do not find any merit in the writ petitions. They are accordingly dismissed. 30. A copy of this order be placed in the connected file.