JUDGMENT : 1. Though the matter was listed in ‘Orders on Interim Application’ Category but on the joint request of both the counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally today itself. 2. The present writ petition is preferred under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, claiming following reliefs: that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and by a writ, order or direction, the non-petitioners may kindly be directed to allot Abadi land to the petitioners in exchange of their land as agreed between the parties. In the alternative, the non-petitioners may kindly be directed to make payment of cost of the land to the petitioners as per the present market rate of the land of the petitioners or the agreed Abadi land which was to be allotted to them. Any other appropriate order or direction which is found just and proper may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners are the Khatedars of the land bearing Aaraji Nos. 1036 and 1037 situated in village Sanwad, tehsil Mawli, district Udaipur, which are in the names of the petitioners No.1 and 2. 4. On 30.3.2007, for extension of the building of Public Health Centre, Sanwad for raising construction of quarters and other facilities under the Nation Rural Health Mission Scheme, land was required to be made available to the Municipal Board, for which a sanction of Rs.43 lacs was made by the State Government. Since the vacant land was not found available and in absence thereof the amount of Rs.43 lacs sanctioned by the State Government was required to be returned, therefore, it was decided to have a site inspection regarding availability of suitable land adjacent to Public Health Centre and for submission of the report. In pursuance of the decision dated 30.3.2007 (Annexure-3), it was decided that Aaraji No. 1036 and 1037 belonging to the petitioners are nearer to the Public Health Centre and on 27.2.2008, by a proposal, it was decided that the land of the aforesaid Khatedars may be taken as per the mutual consent for the consideration of cost or allotment of Aabadi land. For that purpose, the consent was taken from the competent authority and permission was also given by the Administration and finance departments and for that purpose, the Chairman and the Executive Officer of the Municipal Board were authorized to do so. 5. Thereafter on 11.4.2008 in Municipality Fatehnagar Sanwad Office report (Annexure-1) it was mentioned that Aaraji Nos. 1036 and 1037 are in the names of the petitioners No.1 and 2 and it was decided that proposals be sent to the petitioners for giving their land for construction of the building for Public Health Centre in exchange of the cost or Aabadi land. In pursuance thereto, the proposals were sent to the petitioners and the petitioners showed their readiness regarding that proposal for allotment of Aabadi land of the Municipality in exchange of their land. Thereafter the land of the petitioners measuring 4737 and 8500 square feet, total 13237 square feet was taken. 6. In the General Meeting of the Municipal Board a report dated 2.3.2007 regarding proposal No.2 was passed wherein the letter of the Municipal Board dated 7.3.2007 (Annx.2.) was issued wherein it has been mentioned that as for construction of building for the Public Health Centre, Rs.46,00,000/-have been sanctioned by the State Government and in absence of land, the amount will be returned to the Government and therefore it was decided that the land of the Khatedars situated near the Public Health Centre may be acquired and made available to the Municipal Board for which administrative and financial sanction was taken. 7. A letter dated 30.3.2007, (Annx.3.) was issued by the Executive Officer of the Municipal Board to the Patwari of the area for making site inspection of the land situated adjacent to the Public Health Centre. The Chairman and the Executive Officer, vide letter dated 7.3.2008 (Annx.4.) in consequence of the meeting dated 27.2.2008 relating to proposal No.2 which is in respect of taking additional land for construction of building for quarters and providing other facilities, and it was unanimously decided that the adjacent land for the Public Health Centre may be taken as per the mutual consent either by paying the cost or providing Abadi land in exchange of the land taken from the Khatedars. 8. A letter was written by the Municipal Board to the Patwari on 15.3.2008 (Annx.5) for sending the copies of the Aaraji No. 1036 and 1037. 8. A letter was written by the Municipal Board to the Patwari on 15.3.2008 (Annx.5) for sending the copies of the Aaraji No. 1036 and 1037. Thereafter on 23.4.2008, the Municipal Board sent letters (Annx.8 and Annx.9) to the petitioners to the effect that they should give their written consent regarding giving their land in question either in exchange of Abadi land or cost of the land may be taken and surrender the same so that the proceedings for surrender of their land in question may be completed. In pursuance thereto, the petitioners gave their written consent for allotment of Abadi land in exchange of their land vide their letter dated 30.7.2008, (Annx.10 and 11). Furthermore letters were written by the petitioners regarding surrender of their land (Annx.12 and Annx.13). 9. Thereafter the Municipal Board did not allot the Abadi land to the petitioners and, therefore, the petitioners made representations dated 6.1.2009 (Annx.14). Thereafter on 06.2.2009 (Annx.15), the Municipal Board issued a letter to the Deputy Director, Local Self Government, Udaipur mentioning therein that the land of the petitioners measuring 13237 square feet has been taken with their consent to the effect that in exchange of their land, the Abadi land situated at Fatehgarh road will be given to them and as per the proposal dated 27.2.2008 unanimous decision was taken in the meeting for giving Abadi land to the petitioners in exchange of their land. 10. The Deputy Director, Local Self Government, vide letter dated 18.2.2009, (Annx.16.) issued a letter to the Municipal Board that the Office of the Deputy Director, Local Self Government is not authorized and, therefore the proposal may be sent to the State Government by the Municipal Board. On 31.7.2009 (Annx.17.), the Municipal Board sent a letter to the District Collector, Udaipur mentioning therein that as per the General Meeting of the Municipal Board dated 2.3.2007 and the proposal No.2 dated 27.2.2008, it has been unanimously decided that the land of the Khatedars situated in the eastern side of the Public Health Centre may be taken from the Khatedars by their mutual consent in exchange of Abadi land or the cost of the land. In pursuance thereof, petitioners (Khatedars) have given their consent for giving their land in exchange of Abadi land situated at Fatehnagar road and the Municipal Board decided to give to the Khatedars the cost or Abadi land. 11. In pursuance thereof, petitioners (Khatedars) have given their consent for giving their land in exchange of Abadi land situated at Fatehnagar road and the Municipal Board decided to give to the Khatedars the cost or Abadi land. 11. That on 14.10.2009, (Annx.18.) the petitioners again made representations to the Municipal Board to give them Abadi land in exchange of their land, as per the mutual settlement between the petitioners and the respondents. The Municipal Board declined to give Abadi land to the petitioners on the pretext that there is a news item published in the newspaper regarding surrendering the land by the petitioners free of cost. 12. The Petitioners being aggrieved with the order dated 29.12.2009 (Annx.19), the petitioners preferred this writ petition 13. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are the Khatedars of Aaraji No.1036 and 1037, since the building of the Public Health Centre was to be expanded for the interest of the villagers, the petitioners gave their written consent for surrendering their land in exchange of Abadi land. He further submitted that though the respondents have taken the land of the petitioners and raised construction thereon but now the respondents have declined to allot Abadi land to the petitioners in exchange of their land despite the fact that a settlement regarding allotting Abadi land in exchange of the petitioners' land was arrived at between the petitioners and the respondents. Thus, the impugned order dated 29.12.2009 (Annx.19) by the Municipal Board not to allot Abadi land to the petitioners, is wholly illegal, unreasonable, unjust and contrary to the law. 14. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners also submitted that the land in question of the petitioners have been taken by the Municipal Board for expansion of the building of the Public Health Centre after arriving at a settlement with the petitioners, who agreed to surrender their land in exchange of Abadi land and it was acceded to by the respondents then the respondents are estopped to resile therefrom and decline to allot the Abadi land to the petitioners simply on the basis of news item to the effect that the land was surrendered by the petitioners free of cost. He further submitted that the documents produced clearly reveal that the land have been surrendered by the petitioners as per the mutual agreement between the parties with the condition that the land has been surrendered by the petitioners in exchange of Abadi land and the respondents agreed thereto. Thus, the respondents are estopped to resile from their promise and merely in the garb of news item, the petitioners cannot be allowed to suffer. 15. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners also submitted that there is document submitted in any of the proceedings initiated by the respondents in order to show that the petitioners have surrendered their land free of costs. He further submitted that the documents annexed with this writ petition clearly reveal that the petitioners surrendered their land in exchange of Abadi land and the settlement to this effect was arrived at between the parties and simply on the basis of news item published in the news paper, it cannot be said that the petitioners have surrendered their land free of costs. He also submitted that there was no occasion and there cannot be any reason for the petitioners to surrender the land free of cost and there is no recital to this effect in the proceedings initiated by the Municipal Board itself. 16. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners further submitted that as per the documents of the Municipal Board, it is clear that on 27.2.2008, unanimously proposal No.2 was passed for taking additional land of the petitioners to raise construction as per the settlement either by payment of cost of the land or giving Abadi land in exchange of the land of the Khatedars and in this respect, permission of the competent authority has been taken. He also submitted that for surrendering the land, the administrative and financial sanctions had been given and for that purpose, the Chairman as well as the Executive Officer of the Municipal Board had been authorized. After the aforesaid proposal, on 23.4.2008, (Annexure-8) the Municipal Board sent the proposals to the petitioners and thereafter the petitioners gave their consent for giving their land in question to the Municipal Board in exchange of Abadi Land. After the aforesaid proposal, on 23.4.2008, (Annexure-8) the Municipal Board sent the proposals to the petitioners and thereafter the petitioners gave their consent for giving their land in question to the Municipal Board in exchange of Abadi Land. He further submitted that, thereafter the Municipal Board has proceeded to allot the Abadi land to the petitioners; however despite unanimous decision taken by the Municipal Board in its earlier General Meeting, now the Municipal Board has resiled from its earlier decision and the promise to give Abadi land to the petitioners in exchange of their land in question taken by the Municipal Board. He also submitted that it is an undisputed fact on record that the building staff quarters and other facilities had been constructed on the land in question of the petitioners and the Municipality has come totally with an inconsistent and different stand that there is some news item published in the news paper that the land have been given by the petitioners free of cost. He further submitted that as per the law, the Municipality cannot be allowed to change its own stand and decision taken earlier and the stand taken by the Municipal Board vide impugned order Annx.19 dated 29.12.2009 is not mentioned in any of the proceedings initiated by it, thus, once the Municipal Board has taken the land of the petitioners and raised the requisite constructions of building on the land in question of the petitioners then the Municipal Board cannot be allowed to decline to give Abadi land to the petitioners. In support of his submissions learned Counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case Yamuna Express Way Industrial Development Authority Etc. v/s Shakuntala Education and Welfare Society reported in (2022) 0 Supreme (SC)482; Rajhan Narendra Rout v/S State of Maharashtra reported in (2022) 0 AIR (SC) 3992; Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v/s State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. reported in AIR 1979 SC 621 ; B.L. Sridhar v/s K.M. Munireddy reported in (2003) 2 SSC 355; State of Bihar and others vs Kalayanpur cement Ltd. reported in (2010) 3 SCC 274 . 17. Ltd. v/s State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. reported in AIR 1979 SC 621 ; B.L. Sridhar v/s K.M. Munireddy reported in (2003) 2 SSC 355; State of Bihar and others vs Kalayanpur cement Ltd. reported in (2010) 3 SCC 274 . 17. Per Contra learned counsel for the respondents Nos.2 and 3 submitted that in view of the correspondence made by the Deputy Director, Regional Local Self Department, Udaipur dated 18.02.2009 (Annexure-16), the petitioners cannot be allotted Abadi land in lieu of the agricultural land surrendered by him in light of the provisions of the Rajasthan Municipality Act 1959. Learned counsel for the respondents Nos.2 and 3 also submitted that for the purpose of raising construction of quarters and other facilities for the benefit of general public, the petitioners had agreed to surrender their land upon the condition that in exchange, they may be allotted the Abadi land and the respondents had agreed to their condition. 18. Learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that it is an admitted position that the Municipal Board had made a communication with the petitioners on 23.04.2008 (Annexure-8) for the purpose of giving written consent for surrendering their land in exchange of Abadi land or cost of the land and the petitioners had duly surrendered their land. Learned counsel for the respondent also submitted that in the general meeting of the Municipal Board, a unanimous decision was taken that as the petitioners stated that the land in question had been surrendered free of cost to the respondents and the same was published in the newspaper, thus, the petitioners would not be allotted the land in exchange of the land surrendered by them. 19. Heard learned counsel representing the parties; perused the material available on record and the judgments cited at the Bar. 20. This Court Observes that it is an admitted position that the respondents in consequence of the meeting dated 27.02.2008 passed Proposal No.2 for the purpose of taking additional land for construction of building for quarters and providing other facilities. Vide Proposal No.2 placed on record as Annexure-4, it was accordingly decided that the adjacent land to the Public Health Centre may be taken with the mutual consent either by paying the cost of the land or providing an alternate Abadi land in exchange of the land taken from the Khatedars. Vide Proposal No.2 placed on record as Annexure-4, it was accordingly decided that the adjacent land to the Public Health Centre may be taken with the mutual consent either by paying the cost of the land or providing an alternate Abadi land in exchange of the land taken from the Khatedars. This Court further observes that thhe respondents found the land of the petitioners appropriate and adjacent to the Public Health Centre and accordingly made a communication (Annexure-8) to the petitioners for surrendering the land in question to the respondents on exchange basis for which, the petitioners can either opt for an Abadi land or take the cost of the land. 21. This Court also observes that the petitioners submitted the reply dated 30.07.2008 (Annexure-10) to the respondents while submitting that he is willing to surrender the land in question with a condition that he may be given an Abadi land in exchange. The petitioners duly surrendered the land in favour of the respondents by way of surrender letter dated 31.03.2008 (Annexure-12). 22. This Court further observes that it is not a disputed position that the respondents have duly raised construction upon the land in dispute and are also utilizing the infrastructure raised thereupon. The petitioners have specifically stated in the reply dated 30.07.2008 (Annexure 10) that the said land is being surrendered by him only on the condition that he may be given an Abadi land in exchange. The respondents after the petitioners surrendered the land upon the said condition and after the construction has been raised from the said land, had passed the impugned order dated 29.12.2009 (Annexure-19) for whimsical reasons that the petitioners at the inauguration ceremony, had offered the said land without any cost, as the same was published in the newspapers, thus, the petitioners cannot be offered Abadi land in exchange. Moreover, the respondents have not placed any document or any evidence in order to show that the petitioners were willing to surrender the land in question free of cost. Further the respondents have also admitted in their reply that they had agreed to allot the petitioners Abadi land in exchange to the land offered by the petitioners which is also substantiated by a bare perusal of the documents placed on record as dated 06.02.2009 (Annexure 15). 23. Further the respondents have also admitted in their reply that they had agreed to allot the petitioners Abadi land in exchange to the land offered by the petitioners which is also substantiated by a bare perusal of the documents placed on record as dated 06.02.2009 (Annexure 15). 23. Thus in view of the aforesaid discussion and in view of the fact that once the respondents had agreed to give the petitioners Abadi land in exchange of the land offered by the petitioners and the petitioners had specifically consented and surrendered the land upon the condition that he may be given an Abadi land in exchange of the land offered by him, the impugned order dated 29.12.2009 (Annexure-19) deserves to be quashed and set aside. Furthermore, the respondents are directed to allot the petitioners Abadi land in exchange to the land offered by the petitioners within a period of ‘one month’ from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Thus the writ petition is hereby allowed. 24. Stay application as well as all other pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.