ORDER : 1. The instant writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers:- “(i) That the entire record pertaining to this case may kindly be called for and examined. (ii) By an appropriate writ order or direction the impugned order dated 12/03/2004 and 27/11/2004 may kindly be quashed and set aside and consequently the action of the respondents in cancelling the allotment of land be declared to be illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and unconstitutional. (iii) By an appropriate writ order or direction the land of 6350 Sq. Mtrs. Situated at Sector-5, Mansarovar allotted to the petitioner, its allotment be restored forthwith consequently the possession be handed over to the petitioner as per directions of the Hon’ble High Court. (iv) By an appropriate writ order or direction any other appropriate relief to which the petitioner is found entitled to may also kindly be granted in petitioner’s favour. It is, therefore, humbly prayed that the writ petition may kindly be allowed as prayed hereinabove.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is an educational society registered under the Rajasthan Societies Act. The petitioner-society applied for allotment of land before the Rajasthan Housing Board, Jaipur and vide allotment order no. 676 dated 19.07.2001, 6,350 sq. meters of land situated at Sector 5, Mansarovar was allotted to the petitioner-society under the Disposal of Property Regulation, 1970 (Mansarovar Yojna). In pursuance to the allotment, the petitioner-society immediately deposited an amount of Rs. 97,790/-. The petitioner, being an educational society, wrote to the Rajasthan Housing Board for subsidized rates at the government level, for the allotment so made and accordingly, the file of the petitioner was sent to the Urban Development and Housing Department, Secretariat, Government of Rajasthan. In this regard, a letter was also written by the Chief Estate Manager, Rajasthan Housing Board to the aforesaid Department wherein it was informed that allotment of land can be made to educational institutes at a concessional rate. Thereafter, on 17.06.2003, the erstwhile President of the Society, Sh. Tara Chand Chandel, wrote a letter to the Rajasthan Housing Board that in the allotment letter so issued to the petitioner-society, the use of the land has been mentioned as “Samudayeek Kendra” i.e. community centre, whereas, it should be amended to reflect the land use as “Shikshan Sansthan” i.e. educational institute. 3. Tara Chand Chandel, wrote a letter to the Rajasthan Housing Board that in the allotment letter so issued to the petitioner-society, the use of the land has been mentioned as “Samudayeek Kendra” i.e. community centre, whereas, it should be amended to reflect the land use as “Shikshan Sansthan” i.e. educational institute. 3. However, vide order dated 12.03.2004, without communicating the decision of the State Government qua the applicability of subsidized prices for educational institutes, the Rajasthan Housing Board passed an order whereby the allotment made in favour of the petitioner-society was cancelled and the amount so deposited by the petitioner-society to the tune of Rs. 97,790/-was forfeited. Thereafter, the petitioner-society wrote a letter on 10.08.2004 to the Rajasthan Housing Board expressing its willingness to deposit the entire balance amount. Despite the same, and without any notice of cancellation, a letter was received by the petitioner-society on 27.11.2004 whereby the petitioner’s request for depositing the remaining amount was rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner-society argued that the aforesaid actions of the Rajasthan Housing Board are entirely arbitrary and illegal, the same being in contravention of the rules and provisions for allotment and allocation at concessional rates prescribed for educational institution. 4. In this background, learned counsel for the petitioner-society prayed for the setting aside of the impugned order of cancellation of allotment on the following grounds: (a) That neither did the respondents communicate the decision of the State Government qua the applicability of subsidized prices to the petitioner-society and nor did the Rajasthan Housing Board furnish any notice of cancellation upon the petitioner-society before cancelling the allotment made in its favour, thereby, acting in contravention of the principles of natural justice. (b) That in light of the letter written by the Chief Estate Manager, Rajasthan Housing Board to the aforesaid Urban Development and Housing Department wherein the latter was informed that allotment of land can be made to educational institutes at a concessional rate, along with subsequent communication therewith, the petitioner-society was taken to believe that the allotment shall be made as per the provisions of concessional rates, for which the decision was pending at the government level. Thus, the principle of promissory estoppel as well as the principle of legitimate expectation is attracted in the facts and circumstances of the present case. In this regard, reliance was placed upon the Apex Court judgments in Arfat Petrochemicals Pvt. Ltd. & Orts. Thus, the principle of promissory estoppel as well as the principle of legitimate expectation is attracted in the facts and circumstances of the present case. In this regard, reliance was placed upon the Apex Court judgments in Arfat Petrochemicals Pvt. Ltd. & Orts. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: [2021] 0 Supreme (Raj.) 653, Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.: (1979) 2 SCC 409 , National Buildings Construction Corporation vs. S.Raghunathan and Ors.: (1998) 7 SCC 66 . On the ground of estoppel, reliance was also placed on Manuelsons Hotels Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Kerala and Ors.: (2016) 6 SCC 766 . 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Rajasthan Housing Board submitted that the allotment letter issued in favour of the petitioner-society was conditional in nature, subject to the timely deposition of the balance amount. In this regard, it was submitted that after the deposition of the required amount of Rs. 97,790/-, the Rajasthan Housing Board issued the allotment letter in favour of the petitioner-society. Moreover, as per the allotment letter so issued, a sum of Rs. 50,60,633/-was further to be deposited within a period of three months for the allotment to attain finality and upon a failure to deposit the same, the allotment would automatically stand cancelled without any further information/intimation to the petitioner-society. Therefore, as the petitioner-society failed to comply with the terms of the allotment letter by not depositing the balance amount, the allotment so made was cancelled. Hence, it was argued that the terms and conditions of the allotment were abundantly clear qua the cancellation of the allotment in an event of non-compliance of the stipulations laid therein. Learned counsel further submitted that the respondent-Rajasthan Housing Board is governed by the Rajasthan Housing Board (Disposal of Property) Regulation, 1970 whereby in terms of Regulation 21, the breach of any provision of any of the agreements shall be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of the said relevant agreement. Therefore, as the petitioner-society failed to deposit the balance amount within a period of three months after the issuance of the allotment letter, then according as per the terms and conditions laid therein, the allotment so made in favour of the petitioner-society ought to have been cancelled. Therefore, as the petitioner-society failed to deposit the balance amount within a period of three months after the issuance of the allotment letter, then according as per the terms and conditions laid therein, the allotment so made in favour of the petitioner-society ought to have been cancelled. Furthermore, learned counsel relied upon an office order of the respondent-Rajasthan Housing Board dated 26.06.1993 and submitted that as per condition nos. 6 and 7 laid down therein, if the balance amount is not deposited within a period of three months by the allottee, then 2% of the entire sale consideration shall be forfeited by the Rajasthan Housing Board and thereafter, the allotment shall stand cancelled as well. In support of his contentions, learned counsel relied upon the dictum of the Apex Court judgment in Civil Suit Appeal No. 7651-7652 of 2021 titled as Commissioner, Rajasthan Housing Board & Ors. vs. Hiralal Chanda. 6. Heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both the sides, scanned the record of the writ petition and perused the judgments cited at Bar. 7. Upon a perusal of the record, it is observed that the petitioner-society applied for allotment of land before the Rajasthan Housing Board, Jaipur and vide allotment order no. 676 dated 19.07.2001, 6,350 sq. meters of land situated at Sector 5, Mansarovar was allotted to the petitioner-society under the Disposal of Property Regulation, 1970 (Mansarovar Yojna). In pursuance to the same, the petitioner-society deposited an amount of Rs. 97,790/-towards the said allotment. Thereafter, the respondent-Rajasthan Housing Board issued the allotment letter in favour of the petitioner-society. The allotment letter dated 19.07.2001 (marked as Annexure-2) specifically and categorically required the petitioner-society to further deposit the balance amount to the tune of Rs. 50,60,633/-within a period of 3 months from the date of issuance of the said letter, failing which, the allotment so made in favour of the petitioner-society would stand cancelled without any further information/notice. The allotment letter dated 19.07.2001 (marked as Annexure-2) specifically and categorically required the petitioner-society to further deposit the balance amount to the tune of Rs. 50,60,633/-within a period of 3 months from the date of issuance of the said letter, failing which, the allotment so made in favour of the petitioner-society would stand cancelled without any further information/notice. The relevant extract of the letter dated 19.07.2001 is reproduced herein-under: ^^mijksDr jkf'k 50]60]633@& :i;s dk fMek.M MªkV jktLFkku vkoklu e.My] t;iqj ds uke ls cukdj bl i= ds tkjh gksus dh fnukad ls rhu ekg dh vof/k esa layXu pkyku ds }kjk tek djkdj pkyku dh r`rh; izfr ,oa okafNr izi= iw.kZ djds bl dk;kZy; esa izLrqr djsA vkoWVu dh 'krs%& 1- mijksDr jkf'k fu/kkZfjr vof/k esa tek ugh djkus ij Hkw[k.M dk vkWcVu fcuk fdlh iwoZ lwpuk ds fujLr dj fn;k tkosxk ,oa e.My bl Hkwfe dks fdlh vU; laLFkk dks vkaoWVu djus gsrq iw.kZ :i ls Lora= gksxkA 2- okf"kZd yht jkf'k :-1]22]238@& v)Zokf"kZd fdLRkks esa nks ckj tek djkuh gksxhA laLFkk }kjk 9 o"kZ dh cdk;k jkf'k ,deq'r tek djkus ij e.My }kjk ,deq'r yht jkf'k dk izek.k i= tkjh fd;k tk ldrk gSA 3- Hkw[k.M dk mi;ksx mlh dk;Z gsrq fd;k tkosxk] ftlds fy;s e.My us Hkw[k.M vkcafVr fd;k gSAa fdlh vU; dk;Z gsrq Hkw[k.M dk mi;ksx ugha fd;k tk;sxk vkSj u gh okf.kfT;d ykHk dekus dh n`f"V ls mi;ksx fd;k tk;sxkA 4- laLFkk dk vkcWVu Hkw[k.M ij vkCkVu dh frfFk ls 2 o"kZ dh vof/k esa fuekZ.k dk;Z iw.kZ djkuk gksxkA 2 o"kZ dh vof/k esa fuekZ.k dk;Ziw.kZ ugha djkus ij Hkw[k.M o mlds ikl cus v/kwjs Hkou dks ;fn dksbZ gksxk rks e.My }kjk vf/kx`ghr dj fy;k tk;sxk ftldk dksbZ eqvkotk ns; ugh gksxkA 5- ;fn f'k{k.k@izf'k{k.k laLFkk ds fy;s Hkwfe dk vkoWVu gqvk gS rks vkoWVh laLFkk ds mDr vkoWfVr Hkwfe ij fufeZr fd;s tkus okys fo|ky;@izf'k{k.k laLFkku esa e.MYk ds deZpkfj;ksa ds cPpks ds izos'k ds fy;s 5 izfr'kr lhVksa ds vkjf{kr dksVs ,oa 50 izfr'kr f'k{k.k 'kqYd gh fy;s tkus dk izko/kku j[kuk gksxkA 6+- vkoWfVr Hkw[k.M dh pkj fnokjh ds fuekZ.k ij yxus okyk O;; laLFkk dh ogu djuk iMsxk] ftldk fuekZ.k e.My }kjk djk;k tk;sxkA^^ 8. Moreover, as per the office order dated 26.06.1993 issued by the competent authorities at the respondent-Rajasthan Housing Board, in an event where an allottee fails to deposit the required balance amount within a period of three months from the date of issuance of the allotment letter, then 2% amount of the total sale consideration so deposited by the allottee shall stand forfeited and the allotment letter so issued shall cease to have any force. The said condition as enumerated vide office order dated 26.06.1993 lay in sync with Regulation 21 of the Disposal of Property Regulation, 1970. It is reproduced herein-under:- “21. Breach of provision Every breach of any provision of any of the Agreements shall be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of the relevant agreement or of these regulations or of the Act and the rules, regulations and bye-laws made therunder.” 9. Furthermore, vide letter dated 20.02.2003, issued by the respondent-Rajasthan Housing Board, it was made abundantly clear to the petitioner-society that the Rajasthan Housing Board was not competent to allot the land at a lesser/subsidized price than the reserve price to the petitioner-society as no direction had been received from the State Government. Moreover, in the said letter, it was expressly stated that as per the provisions/rules of the respondent-Rajasthan Housing Board, there is a provision to charge the lesser amount than the reserve price, in case, the allottee is receiving the land for a Government Aided Society. However, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, as the petitioner-society was not a Government Aided Society, the petitioner-society, on part of the Rajasthan Housing Board, was not entitled to be allotted the land on lesser price than the reserve price. 10. At the same time, it is also pertinent to note that the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner-society on the Principle of Promissory Estoppel and the Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case, as the said judgments in Arfat Petrochemicals (Supra), Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills (Supra), National Building Construction Corporation (Supra) and Manuelsons Hotels (Supra) pertain to distinguishable facts, relating to direct and indirect taxes. Moreover, in the present facts, the allotment so made in favour of the petitioner-society was conditional in nature, duly subject to the deposition of the balance amount within a period of three months from date of issuance of the allotment letter. Therefore, as the petitioner-society failed to fulfill the specific terms and conditions incorporated within allotment letter dated 19.07.2001, which were in sync with the Disposal of Property Regulation, 1970, the actions of the respondent-Rajasthan Housing Board seem justified. In this regard, it is pertinent to note that instead of fulfilling the conditions incorporated within the letter dated 19.07.2001 qua the deposition of the balance amount, the petitioner-society did not act bonafidely and rather repeatedly made attempts vide communications dated 02.07.2001 (Annexure R/2) and 17.06.2003 (Annexure R/4) among others, to obtain possession of the land so allotted without paying the due balance amount in a timely manner, and asking for repeated extensions to effectuate the payment as required by the respondent-Rajasthan Housing Board. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present matter, the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the respondents titled as Commissioner, Rajasthan Housing Board & Ors vs. Heera Lal Chanda (Supra) is squarely applicable. The relevant extract is reproduced herein-under:- “8. The primary issue which requires to be considered is whether there was, in fact, any default on the part of the appellant or conversely whether it was the respondent who was in breach of his obligations as a prospective allottee. In Chief Administrator PUDA and Ors. vs. Shabnam Virk, this Court discussed the binding effect of the terms and conditions of allotment on the consumer. This Court held that the consumer is bound to pay the increased price of the allotted house since the terms of the allotment specified that the price declared earlier is a tentative assessment and is subject to revision. Thus, the appellant is entitled to cancel the allotment if the respondent has failed to fulfil the conditions of the allotment. At this stage, it is material to note that no formal allotment was ever made to the respondent and upon the deposit of the initial amount towards registration, his name was registered under the Scheme. According to the appellant, a letter was addressed to the respondent on 3 September 1993 requiring the deposit of seed money or an advance in three installments under the Scheme. According to the appellant, a letter was addressed to the respondent on 3 September 1993 requiring the deposit of seed money or an advance in three installments under the Scheme. The respondent disputes the receipt of the letter and the District Forum primarily held in his favour on the ground that the appellant ought to have produced proof of receipt which was not done. The important circumstance, which has a bearing on the case, however, is that thereafter, the appellant communicated to the respondent on 15 April 1999 requiring him to produce proof of deposit of the seed money in terms of the earlier letter of 3 September 1993. There was a clear reference to the earlier letter dated 3 September 1993. The respondent is an advocate and this was a fact which would not miss the attention of a legally trained person. In his response, which was dated 3 May 1999, the respondent did not deny receipt of the earlier letter dated 3 September 1993. By his reply, the respondent sought a time of one and half months to deposit the amount. The respondent however admittedly did not make any deposit of the amount which was required until eventually the registration was cancelled on 29 May 2000. The respondent was in receipt of the letter of cancellation which is admitted in terms of his letter dated 12 December 2008 to the Estate Manager of the Housing Board and, subsequently, on 2 August 2010 to the Commissioner, Urban Development. Even after the cancellation of the allotment, the respondent took no steps to pursue his remedies under the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The respondent was evidently persuaded to take recourse to his legal remedies in 2011 because a policy decision was taken by the Housing Board on 6 August 2009 in terms of which, it was stipulated that where a registration/allotment had been cancelled due to an administrative mistake of the Housing Board, it would be restored if the application is filed within one year from the date of cancellation. On the other hand, cases where there was no administrative fault on the part of the Housing Board, would not be restored.” 11. Therefore, in light of the observations made herein-above, the present writ petition stands dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.