JUDGMENT : M.N. Bhandari, J. By these writ petitions, a challenge is made to the various orders passed by the Jaipur Development Authority so as order of the Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Development Authority and also the order of Board of the Infrastructure Development and Investment Promotion ("BIDI"). BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE AND ARGUMENTS OF THE RIVAL PARTIES: 2. The Institute of Marwari Entrepreneurship made a request to the State Government for allotment of 15,000 square metres of land for the institutional purposes. On the recommendation of the Department of Industries, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur Development Authority allotted 13000 square metres land in Jhalana Industrial Area at the concessional rate. The possession of the land was given on 12th November, 1992. The State Government then sanctioned 2461.85 square metres extra land making it 15453.60 square metres. The petitioner-institution deposited the amount but with delay. The respondents issued a letter on 28th April, 1993 for re-allotment of plot at the concession rate of Rs. 75/- square metres on various terms and conditions. The petitioner-institution was required to start the construction within a period of six months as per sanctioned plans by the JDA and complete it within a period of two years. In case of default, the allotment was liable to be cancelled without any notice. The petitioner-institution was even restrained to sell, mortgage, donate and sublet the land. On 2nd March, 1996, the buildings plans were approved for construction of building. The permission to raise construction was also granted. When no progress was made by the petitioner-institution, then Jaipur Development Authority vide letter dated 27th April, 1997 cancelled the permission for construction. The Building Plan Committee-II of the JDA cancelled the sanctioned building plan on 17th December, 1997. The LPC in its 235th meeting proposed to cancel the allotment. 3. The petitioner-institution challenged the order of cancellation of sanctioned building plan before the Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Development Authority. The Tribunal vide order dated 29th May, 1998 allowed the appeal and an order of cancellation of sanctioned building plan declared illegal and arbitrary. The JDA preferred a review petition but it was dismissed vide order dated 5th July, 2000. The petitioner-institution then preferred a Reference Petition before the Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Development Authority to seek a direction for execution of the lease deed. The Tribunal vide order dated 25th August, 2000 directed the JDA to execute the lease deed. The JDA preferred a review petition but it was dismissed vide order dated 5th July, 2000. The petitioner-institution then preferred a Reference Petition before the Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Development Authority to seek a direction for execution of the lease deed. The Tribunal vide order dated 25th August, 2000 directed the JDA to execute the lease deed. The petitioner-institution, in the meantime, approached the settlement committee of the JDA to seek a direction for execution of the lease deed. The settlement committee also gave direction to the JDA to comply the order of the Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Development Authority. 4. The Tribunal vide order dated 25th August, 2000 directed the JDA to execute the lease deed. The petitioner-institution, in the meantime, approached the settlement committee of the JDA to seek a direction for execution of the lease deed. The settlement committee also gave direction to the JDA to comply the order of the Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Development Authority. 4. On 4th August, 2003, lease deed was issued in favour of the petitioner-institution on the following terms and conditions, which are quoted hereunder for ready reference: 1 & mDr Hkw[k.M dk mi;ksx dsoy ml laLFkku ds lkoZtfud mns'; dh iwfrZ ds vk'k; ls fdlh Hkou ;k Hkouksa ds cuokus esa gh gksxkA ftl lkoZtfud mns'; gsrq laLFkk dks Hkwfe vkoafVr dh xbZ gS mlh mns'; ds fy, Hkwfe o Hkou dk mi;ksx fd;k tk,xkA Hkw[k.M o Hkou dk O;kolkf;d ;k ykHk dekus dh n`f"V ls mi;ksx ;k miHkksx ugha fd;k tk ldsxkA 2 & Hkw[k.M ij fuekZ.k dk;Z vkoaVu dh nks o"kZ dh vof/k esa ÁkjEHk dj iw.kZ djuk gksxk vU;Fkk Hkw[k.M ds isVs tek djkbZ xbZ jkf'k fcuk C;kt ds ykSVkbZ tkdj Hkw[k.M ftl Hkh fLFkfr esa gksxk tCr dj fy;k tk,xkA 3 & pwafd mijksDr Hkw[k.M fo'ks"k 'krksaZ ds vUrxZr fo'ks"k fj;k;r ls vkoaVu fd;k x;k gS vr% Hkw[k.M dks jkT; ljdkj ;k fdlh fof/k ekU; forh; laLFkk ls Hkw[k.M ds vf/kd`r mi;ksx gsrq _.k fy;s tkus ds ,ot esa jgu j[kus ds vfrfjDr vU; fdlh Hkh Ádkj ls jgu@cspku fdjk;s bR;kfn ds fy, gLrkUrj.k ugha fd;k tk ldsxkA laLFkk ds volku esa pys tkus vFkok ftl mns'; ds fy, laLFkk 'kq: dh xbZ Fkh mu mns';ksa dh iwfrZ ds i'pkr~ laLFkk ds can gks tkus dh n'kk esa mDr lEifr Lor% gh t;iqj fodkl Ákf/kdj.k@jkT; ljdkj ds LokfeRo esa ekuh tkosxh rFkk bldk dksbZ eqvkotk ugha fn;k tk,xkA 4 & iV`snkj vkoaVh }kjk vkoaVu i= dh 'krksZ ,oa iV`s dh mijksDr leLr 'krksZa dh iw.kZ ikyuk dh tkosxh ;fn fdlh Hkh 'krZ ;k 'krksZa dk mYya?ku fd;k x;k rks mDr Hkw[k.M ,oa ml ij cus gq, Hkou ;fn dksbZ gks lfgr mDr Hkw[k.M fcuk fdlh eqvkots dh jkf'k ds vf/kxzg.k dj fy;k tkosxkA 5 & jkT; ljdkj ds uxjh; fodkl ,ao vkoklu foHkkx i= Øekad 3 5 ufovk@3@94 fnuakd 01-01-2003 ds vuqlkj laLFkk yht MhM tkjh gksus dh frfFk ls nks o"kZ dh vof/k esa mlds }kjk ÁLrkfor lqfo/kkvksa vkSj mns';ksa dk U;wure 24-70 djksM+ :i;s dk fofu;kstu djsxk vkSj nks o"kZ dh bl vof/k esa Ákf/kdj.k }kjk Lohd`r uD'ks ds vuqlkj Hkw[k.M ij leLr fuekZ.k dk;Z iwjk dj ysxh ftlesa ls vk/kk fuekZ.k dk;Z igys ,d o"kZ dh vof/k esa iwjk djuk vko';d gksxkA 6 & buesa ls fdlh 'krZ dk vFkok vkoaVu i= esa of.kZr fdlh vU; 'krZ dk ikyu u djus ij laLFkk dks vkoafVr Hkwfe dk vkoaVu fujLr dj fn;k tkosxkA 5. As per Condition No.2, the petitioner-institution was to start and complete the construction within a period of two years. As per Condition No.4, default in compliance of the terms and conditions was to result in resumption of the land in the JDA. As per condition No.6, allotment is to be cancelled in case of violation. After execution of the lease deed, on the terms and conditions quoted above, the petitioner-institution furnished an undertaking in reference to the conditions on which allotment of land was made. An affidavit furnished by the Director of the petitioner-institution is also quoted hereunder for ready reference: 1 & laLFkk yht MhM tkjh gksus dh frfFk ls 2 o"kZ dh vof/k esa mlds }kjk ÁLrkfor lqfo/kkvksa vkSj mns';ksa dk U;wure 24-70 djksM+ :i;s dk fofu;kstu djsxh vkSj nks o"kZ dh vof/k esa Ákf/kdj.k }kjk Lohd`r uD'ks ds vuqlkj Hkw[k.M ij leLr fuekZ.k dk;Z iwjk dj ysxh ftlesa ls vk/kk fuekZ.k dk;Z igys ,d o"kZ dh vof/k esa iwjk djuk vko';d gksxkA 2 & buesa ls fdlh 'krZ dk vFkok vkaoVu i= esa of.kZr fdlh vU; 'krZ dk ikyu u djus ij laLFkk dks vkoafVr Hkwfe dk vkoaVu fujLr dj fn;k tkosxkA 6. After submission of the affidavit, the petitioner-institution was required to start and complete the construction within a period of two years, out of which, half of the construction was to be completed within a period of one year. The total investment within the period given above was to be of Rs. 24.70 crore. 7. The issue then came as to whether construction can be raised as per previous approved plans. The JDA refused to revalidate the earlier building plan and accordingly, the petitioner-institution was asked to submit new building plans keeping in mind the Jaipur Development Authority Building Regulations, 2000. On submission of the building plans, it was approved by the JDA on 22nd November, 2004. The petitioner-institution failed to undertake and complete the construction of the building within the time specified in the lease agreement, rather, it sent the letters to seek extension of time. The JDA sent a letter to the BIDI on 16th February, 2006 giving no objection if time is extended till October, 2007. 8. In the meanwhile, the name of the petitioner-institution got changed. It was registered as "International Institute of Management and Entrepreneurship". The JDA sent a letter to the BIDI on 16th February, 2006 giving no objection if time is extended till October, 2007. 8. In the meanwhile, the name of the petitioner-institution got changed. It was registered as "International Institute of Management and Entrepreneurship". The BIDI in its 22nd meeting held on 21st November, 2006 did not agree for extension of time to complete the construction, rather, recommended to cancel the allotment as land allotted in the year 1990 was not used, that too, when the Tribunal even passed an order in favour of the petitioner-institute on cancellation of the building plans. The petitioner-institution made a request to the BIDI not to cancel the allotment of the land. The BIDI in its 23rd meeting held on 5th October, 2007 decided to reject the representation of the petitioner-institution. The JDA was directed to take action expeditiously for implementation of the earlier decision of the BIDI. 9. The petitioner-institution preferred a writ petition against the decision of the BIDI. The writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 7th August, 2008. It was with a direction to the petitioner-institution to represent the Commissioner, JDA, who would decide their request for extension of time to raise construction. The petitioner-institution made a representation to the Commissioner, JDA for extension of time. The reference of certain cases were given where extension of time was granted by imposition of resumption charges as per the Rajasthan Urban Improvement (Department of Urban Land) Rules, 1974 (for short "the Act of 1974"). The Commissioner, JDA rejected the representation made by the petitioner-institution. It was in reference to the undertaking given by the Director of the Institution to incur Rs. 24.70 crore within a period of two years apart from other grounds. The institution has already been given time to start and complete the construction. 10. The Urban Development Housing Department, State of Rajasthan, in the meanwhile, issued a letter on 13th October, 2008 to provide seven years time to raise and complete the construction from the date of allotment/auction. In case of failure to complete the construction within seven years, the time can be extended if special reasons are assigned. It would be after imposition of resumption charges. The petitioner-institution thus withdrew its writ petition with liberty to file afresh. It is to make a representation to the State Government in the light of the order dated 13th October, 2008. It would be after imposition of resumption charges. The petitioner-institution thus withdrew its writ petition with liberty to file afresh. It is to make a representation to the State Government in the light of the order dated 13th October, 2008. 11. The petitioner-institution sent a representation to the JDA and other authorities on 17th July, 2009, to seek extension of time. A specific reference of the Government order dated 13th October, 2008 was given. The JDA took possession of the land after dismissal of the writ petition on its withdrawal. The petitioner-institution thus filed a Reference Application bearing No.252/2009 before the Appellate Tribunal, JDA. It was in regard to representation dated 17th July, 2009, having not been decided. The Tribunal passed an interim order therein. The petitioner-institution made an application in pending Reference Petition to challenge the order dated 13th August, 2008. It was dismissed as the order aforesaid was appealable and even after knowing about the stay order in the earlier writ petition as well as during the course of reference, the petitioner-institution failed to file an appeal. It was more so when order came in the knowledge of the petitioner-institution even before withdrawal of the earlier writ petition on 16th July, 2009. 12. The JDA submitted office notes dated 14th & dated 15th December, 2010 indicating rejection of the representation submitted on 7th July, 2009. It was mainly on the ground that JDA is unable to review the earlier order dated 13th August, 2008. The Tribunal dismissed the reference application vide order dated 11th February, 2010. In pursuance of the aforesaid, the JDA passed an order on 15th February, 2010 informing the petitioner-institution about cancellation of the allotment. The said order has been challenged by maintaining a separate writ petition while the earlier writ petition was pending consideration. 13. Learned counsel for petitioner-institution submitted that construction of the building has been undertaken and even completed upto the level of basement and further progress has been made. The inspection report dated 26th October, 2009 has been referred for the aforesaid. Even if said report is taken into consideration then shows construction of basement. The construction has been taken up for first floor in same part but is only structure. Some brick work and pillars exist. In view of the above, the petitioner-institution failed to comply the conditions of lease agreement and even the undertaking given by them. Even if said report is taken into consideration then shows construction of basement. The construction has been taken up for first floor in same part but is only structure. Some brick work and pillars exist. In view of the above, the petitioner-institution failed to comply the conditions of lease agreement and even the undertaking given by them. They cannot be governed by the subsequent order of the Government providing different period for raising and completion of the construction. 14. In fact, if entire case is taken up then it shows that first approval of the building plan was given on 2nd March, 1996 but no progress was made, however, on a litigation, order for cancellation of building plan was set aside. On second occasion, approval of the building plan was given on 22nd November, 2004 but then also the work was not undertaken and completed within the period given in the lease deed and even the undertaking. The Tribunal in its order considered all the relevant issues while dismissing the reference application. I do not find any illegality therein so as to cause interference while exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The cancellation of allotment after the order of the Tribunal cannot be said to be illegal. 15. This court is not inclined to go against the conditions incorporated in the lease deed and undertaking given by the petitioner-institution. The construction of the building was not only to be started but was required to be completed within a period of two years. 16. In the light of the aforesaid, I do not find any reason to cause interference in the impugned orders. The writ petitions being devoid of merit are accordingly dismissed. A copy of this order be placed in the connected file.