JUDGMENT : 1. An application (IA No. 1/2022) has been filed in SBCWP No. 10359/2016 under Order 22 Rule 3 of CPC for substitution of the legal representatives of the petitioner on record. 2. For the reasons stated therein, the same is allowed. 3. Amended cause title is already placed on record. 4. With due consent of both the sides, the matters are taken up for final disposal. 5. The present writ petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 28.04.2016, passed by respondent no.3, with the following prayers:- “It is therefore prayed that your lordships will be pleased to accept this writ petition and summon the records from the respondents and after examining the same and by an appropriate writ, order or direction: i) by an appropriate, writ, order or direction to quash the impugned order dated 28/04/2016 (Annex.27) passed by UIT, Kota and alternate land may kindly be allotted to the petitioner as allotted to similarly situated persons in the same location/area. ii) by an appropriate, writ, order or direction to the respondents to consider the various representation of the petitioner and allotted the alternate land in lieu of plot No. 13 situated at village Khandgawadi, Kota (Known as Civil Lines Kota) as allotted to other similarly situated person on 02/08/1989 (Annex.6), 03/03/1990 (Annex.9), 09/04/1999 (Annex.10), 24/03/2005 (Annex.12) under the scheme of Land for land in the same locality. iii) Any other order, which this Hon’ble Court deem just and proper may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner. iv) Cost of the writ petition may kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioner.” 6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that on 16.05.1958, the Gram Panchayat Khandgawadi-Kota (at present, known as Civil Lines-Kota), as per the provision(s) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953, had issued patta(s) in favour of the petitioner as well other persons, after having received applications by them, with regards to the construction of houses on several plots, including that on Plot No. 13 admeasuring 277.77 sq. yards qua the petitioner. Thereafter, on 17.11.1973, in light of the Apex Court judgment in Ram Narain vs. State of Rajasthan reported in AIR 1973 SC 1188 , the respondents accepted the validity of the patta(s) so issued in favour of the petitioner as well as the other individuals. yards qua the petitioner. Thereafter, on 17.11.1973, in light of the Apex Court judgment in Ram Narain vs. State of Rajasthan reported in AIR 1973 SC 1188 , the respondents accepted the validity of the patta(s) so issued in favour of the petitioner as well as the other individuals. It is pertinent to note that in the meantime, from 1958 to 1973, the respondents continued to constructed houses for Government Officers on the land of the petitioner as well as other individuals, in whose favour the aforesaid patta(s) had been duly issued, without conducting any acquisition proceedings or making payment in favour of the petitioner as well as the other persons as compensation. Thereafter, learned counsel submitted that on 02.08.1989, the State took a decision to allot alternate land under the scheme of land for land, to other patta holders, namely Sh. Anoop Chand Jain and Smt. Shakuntala Jain. Accordingly, in pursuance to the order dated 02.08.1989, the UIT Kota , vide order dated 16.10.1989, allotted alternate plot(s) i.e. Plot No. 738-A in Dadabari CAD Circle, Kota to namely, Sh. Anoop Chand Jain and Smt. Shakuntala Jain. 7. Learned counsel submitted that looking to the aforementioned allotment of plot(s) to Sh. Anoop Chand Jain and Smt. Shakuntala Jain, by way of letter dated 25.01.1990 (Annexure-8), the petitioner as well as the other patta holders approached the State Government for the allotment of alternate land under the scheme of allotment of land for the land so acquired by the State. In this regard, it was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that relying upon Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner became eligible for allotment of alternate land, when those individuals, who were placed at the same pedestal and were similarly situated to the petitioner, were allotted land by the UIT Kota on 16.10.1989. It was submitted that in pursuance to the letter dated 25.01.1990, the Secretary UIT Kota, wrote a letter dated 03.03.1990, to the Chief Minister for the State of Rajasthan to the effect that alternate land situated at Subhash Nagar Yojana, Kota may be allotted to certain individuals, namely Sh. Nathu Lal Jain, Sh. Pana Chand Jain, Sh. Late Poonam Chand Jain, Sh. Chandra Mohan, Sh. Ram Narain and Sh. Prakash Chand. Nathu Lal Jain, Sh. Pana Chand Jain, Sh. Late Poonam Chand Jain, Sh. Chandra Mohan, Sh. Ram Narain and Sh. Prakash Chand. In addition to the aforesaid, by way of an illustrative letter dated 09.04.1999 (marked as Annexure-10), the State Government had also granted permission to allot alternate land to Sh. Chitranjan Jain as well. Furthermore, apart from the recommendations/directions qua allotment as referred hereinabove, in pursuance to the directions given by this Court to the respondents in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5100/2002 filed by Smt. Man Bai, the respondents allotted alternate land to Smt. Man Bai as well on 24.03.2005. 8. With regards to the allotment(s) referred herein-above, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that his case qua the allotment of alternate land for the land so acquired was on the same pedestal as Smt. Man Bai, in whose favour allotment had already been made. Therefore, the petitioner filed a S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10394/2010, which was was disposed of on 06.05.2015 with a direction to the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the respondents, especially in light of the fact that similarly situated individuals, like Smt. Man Bai had been allotted alternate plots of land. Accordingly, in pursuance to this Court’s order dated 06.05.2015, the petitioner submitted a fresh representation before the respondents along with all the relevant documents. Thereafter, by way of communication dated 15.12.2015, the respondent-UIT informed the petitioner that the representation so filed by him was sent to the State Government for their approval. Meanwhile, as the approval was pending, the petitioner filed a contempt petition before this Court, for the reason that despite the categoric directions of this Court to consider the representation of the petitioner, nothing in that regard had been done by the respondents. However, much to the dismay of the petitioner, vide order dated 28.04.2016, the respondent-UIT rejected the representation filed by the petitioner on the ground that the State Government had not given any approval qua the allotment of alternate land to the petitioner and that further enquiry would be conducted by them qua the issuance of the said allotment letters. At the same time, the contempt petition filed by the petitioners was also dismissed as withdrawn with liberty granted to the petitioner to challenge the aforementioned order dated 28.04.2016, passed by the UIT, by way of a separate writ petition. At the same time, the contempt petition filed by the petitioners was also dismissed as withdrawn with liberty granted to the petitioner to challenge the aforementioned order dated 28.04.2016, passed by the UIT, by way of a separate writ petition. Hence, in this background, the petitioners have filed the instant writ petition challenging the order dated 28.04.2016, passed by respondent no.3- UIT, Kota. 9. In support of his case for the due allotment of alternate plot/land in his favour, learned counsel submitted that the petitioners are the original patta holders (marked as Annexure2), whose validity is not in question before this Court as the same have been duly recognized by the respondents in light of the Apex Court judgment in Ram Narain (Supra). In this regard, it was submitted that the name of the petitioners were mentioned at Item Nos. 22 and 66 in the cash paper book submitted before the Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforementioned case. It was argued that in the said list wherein the petitioners appear at serial nos. 22 and 66, several other similarly situated individuals, to whom allotment has already been made, are also included, such as Sh. Anoop Jain and Smt. Shakuntala Jain at serial nos. 1 and 2, Smt. Man Bai at serial no. 62 and Poonam Chand Jain at serial no. 9. Therefore, it was conclusively argued that considering the fact that similarly situated individuals, reference of whose names also forms part of the list put forth before the Apex Court in the matter of Ram Narain (Supra) have already been allotted alternate land and therefore, alternate land must also be allotted to the petitioners, in similar terms with the other individuals referred herein-above. 10. While praying so, learned counsel placed reliance upon the allotment letters issued to the other similarly situated persons along with the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Vidya Devi vs. State of Himachal Pradesh reported in 2020 AIR (SC) 4709. In the said judgment, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that no period of limitation comes into play when the courts are to exercise their constitutional jurisdiction to do substantial justice, especially in cases where State has forcibly dispossessed an individual from his/her property. In the said judgment, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that no period of limitation comes into play when the courts are to exercise their constitutional jurisdiction to do substantial justice, especially in cases where State has forcibly dispossessed an individual from his/her property. In essence, the Court propelled that the State cannot be permitted to perfect its title over land by invoking doctrine of adverse possession to grab the property of its own citizens. 11. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents, whilst praying for the dismissal of the present writ petition, submitted that while considering the representation submitted by the petitioners before the UIT Kota, the latter was compelled to dismissed the same as no approval was granted by the State for the issuance of the said allotment letter(s). Moreover, it was also observed at the time of rejection of the said representation, that the State shall also conduct certain enquiries qua the issuance of allotment letters. However, the learned counsel for the respondents was unable to refute the fact that similarly situated individuals such as Sh. Anoop Jain and Smt. Shakuntala, Smt. Man Bai and Poonam Chand Jain, whose names were also incorporated in the list before the Apex Court in the case of Ram Narain (Supra) have already been furnished with allotment letters for alternate land. 12. Heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both the sides, scanned the record of the present writ petition and perused the judgment(s) cited at Bar. 13. In the facts and circumstances of the instant writ petition, it is observed that on 16.05.1958, one patta was issued by the Gram Panchayat in favour of the petitioner (marked as Annexure-2). Thereafter, by way of a criminal appeal in Ram Narain (Supra), a challenge was made before the Apex Court to the patta(s) so issued. However, vide order dated 31.01.1973, the Hon’ble Apex Court upheld the validity and genuineness of the patta(s) issued by the Gram Panchayat. While dealing with the issue of the validity of the patta(s), a comprehensive list of all the patta holders was placed on record before the Apex Court. In the said list, the petitioners, who have not yet been allotted alternate land, despite the patta(s) having been declared as valid, were placed at serial nos. 22 and 66. Whereas, certain other individuals, namely Sh. In the said list, the petitioners, who have not yet been allotted alternate land, despite the patta(s) having been declared as valid, were placed at serial nos. 22 and 66. Whereas, certain other individuals, namely Sh. Anoop Jain, Smt. Shakuntala, Poonam Chand Jain and Man Bai, who were placed at serial nos.1, 2, 9 and 62, have already been allotted alternate land by way allotment letters dated 03.08.1989, 31.01.90 amongst others. Thus, considering the fact that individuals who were placed on the same pedestal as the present petitioners have been allotted alternate land by the respondents, this Court’s interference in the present matter is warranted to prevent discrimination to the petitioners under Article(s) 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 14. Furthermore, during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the State has put forth only one contention in support of the non-allotment of alternate land to the petitioners i.e. non-grant of approval by the State for undertaking such an action. However, in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the matter, it is categorically observed that once similarly situated and identically placed individuals, as referred above, have been given allotment letters for alternate pieces of land, then the State cannot pick and choose, and deny allotment to the present petitioners, especially in light of the fact that the petitioners along with the other allottees duly formed part of the record/list of the patta holders, as was submitted before the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ram Narain (Supra). 15. Therefore, considering the fact that similarly situated individuals, as referred herein-above, have been furnished allotment letters for alternate plots/land, this Court is inclined to allow the present writ petitions and set aside the impugned order dated 28.04.2016. 16. In light of the aforesaid, the UIT Kota is directed to allot alternate piece(s) of land to the petitioners, in similar terms and within identical and proportional parameters/value, as allotted to the similarly situated individuals named above, so that no further discrimination is caused to the petitioners. The said exercise be carried out within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 17. Accordingly, in view of the above, the present writ petitions are allowed. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of.