JUDGMENT : 1. Both the writ petitions; one by Soni Shikshan Samiti (SBCW P. No. 25637/2018) and another by the Urban Improvement Trust, Bharatpur (SBCW P. No. 3800/2019), have been preferred against the common order dated 05.11.2018 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Bharatpur in Revision Petition No. 3/18 filed under Rule 30 of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Trust (Disposal of Urban Land) Rules, 1974 (for short ‘the Rules of 1974’). 2. The petition under Rule 30 of the Rules of 1974 was filed by the respondent- P.D. Poddar Welfare & Development Society (for short ‘the respondent- Society’) against Resolution No.9 dated 08.12.2017 of the Urban Improvement Trust, Bharatpur (for short ‘the UIT, Bharatpur’) for taking decision in regard to allotment of the land in question to the petitioner- Soni Shikshan Samiti (for short ‘the petitioner- Samiti’). 3. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE: (i) For allotment and disposal of land under the Rules of 1974, the Government of Rajasthan framed a Land Allotment Policy-2015. (ii) The UIT, Bharatpur, issued an advertisement on 16.12.2016 inviting applications/ suggestions and objections in regard to the land in question situated in Sector-3, earmarked for the School. (iii) The respondent- Society submitted an application for allotment of the land in question. (iv) In the meeting of the UIT, Bharatpur, held on 25.01.2017, the application submitted by the the respondent- Society was considered and it was decided to seek informations. (v) On 02.03.2017 the relevant informations were sought and after considering the applications and the relevant informations, the UIT Bharatpur vide Resolution No.11-B dated 29.06.2017 (05.07.2017) resolved to make allotment of land measuring 2064 sq. meter to the respondent- Society. (vi) After decision of allotment of the land in question to the respondent- Society, the UIT, Bharatpur, issued a letter dated 09.08.2017 to the respondent- Society for depositing Rs. 1,41,86,228/- within 30 days with the stipulation that the conditions of Allotment Policy of 2015 will be applicable. (vii) The the respondent- Society made an application on 06.09.2017 to the UIT, Bharatpur for extension of time for depositing the amount under Clause 5.7 of the Allotment Policy- 2015. (viii) On 15.10.2017 the respondent- Society made a representation to the respondent- UIT, Bharatpur, under the provisions of Clause 5.3 of the Allotment Policy-2015 for making allotment of the land in question on 50% of the reserved price. (viii) On 15.10.2017 the respondent- Society made a representation to the respondent- UIT, Bharatpur, under the provisions of Clause 5.3 of the Allotment Policy-2015 for making allotment of the land in question on 50% of the reserved price. (ix) The application submitted by the respondent- Society for allotment of land in question on 50% of reserved price was forwarded by the UIT, Bharatpur to the State Government on 02.11.2017. (x) On 27.11.2017 the petitioner – Samiti submitted an application to the UIT, Bharatpur, for making allotment of land earmarked by the UIT, Bharatpur for the School in Sector-3. (xi) On the application of the petitioner- Samiti dated 27.11.2017, the UIT, Bharatpur in its meeting held on 08.12.2017 vide Resolution at Point No. 3 took a decision for allotment of 2064 sq. meter land to the petitioner- Samiti at reserved price + 15%. (xii) In furtherance of the Resolution for allotment of the land to the petitioner- Samiti, the UIT, Bharatpur, on 15.12.2017 issued a demand letter demanding Rs. 1,41,86,216/- to be deposited within 30 days. (xiii) In view of the demand notice the petitioner- Samiti deposited Rs.11,00,000/- vide Demand Draft No.678633 dated 15.12.2017. Thereafter, admittedly the petitioner-Samiti deposited Rs.30 lakh more with the respondent- UIT, Bharatpur and in this manner the petitioner- Samiti deposited Rs.41 lakh with the respondent- UIT, Bharatpur. (xiv) When the application of the respondent- Society for allotment of the land in question on 50% of the reserved price was under consideration with the Government, the UIT, Bharatpur, vide letter dated 20.12.2017 requested the State Government that no further proceedings are desirable on the UIT’s earlier letter dated 02.11.2017 because the land in question has been allotted to the petitioner – Samiti vide Resolution dated 08.12.2017 and Demand Letter dated 15.12.2017. The State Government vide letters dated 25.01.2018, 22.02.2018 and 05.03.2018 stated that when the matter for allotment of land in question on 50% of the reserved price in favour of the respondent- Society is pending before the State Government then the UIT, Bharatpur at its own level is not justified in making allotment of the said land in question to the other Society and called for explanations. (xv) The UIT, Bharatpur, vide letters dated 12.03.2018 and 10.04.2018 submitted its explanations. (xv) The UIT, Bharatpur, vide letters dated 12.03.2018 and 10.04.2018 submitted its explanations. (xvi) Being aggrieved by the Resolution dated 08.12.2017 for allotment of the land in question in favour of the petitioner- Samiti, the respondent- Society approached the Divisional Commissioner, Bharatpur, by filing an application on 03.02.2018 under Rule 30 of the Rules of 1974 assailing the decision of the allotment of land in question in favour of the petitioner- Samiti. (xvii) The Divisional Commissioner, Bharatpur, vide order dated 11.01.2018 suspended the Resolution No.9 dated 08.12.2017 which was under challenged in the application filed by the respondent- Society. (xviii) Since the application under Rule 30 of the Rules of 1974 was filed by the respondent- Society without impleading the petitioner- Samiti as a party, the petitioner- Samiti moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleading it as a party and the said application was allowed by the Divisional Commissioner, Bharatpur, vide order dated 03.10.2018. The reply to the said application was filed by the respondent -UIT, Bharatpur. (xix) The Divisional Commissioner, Bharatpur, vide its order dated 05.11.2018 allowed the application of the respondent- Society and set aside the Resolution No.9 dated 08.12.2017 and further directed the respondent- UIT, Bharatpur, to allow the respondent- Society to deposit the amount at a reserved price + 15% within thirty days and to accept the amount in view of Clause 5.7 of the Allotment Policy-2015 and to issue the Patta of the land in question in favour of the respondent- Society and to refund the amount deposited by the petitioner- Samiti. 4. Mr. A.K. Sharma, Sr. Counsel assisted by Mr. Rachit Sharma, counsel appearing for the petitioner in (SBCW P. No. 25637/2018) submitted that the order impugned dated 05.11.2018 passed by the Court of Divisional Commissioner, Bharatpur is perse illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the facts on record as well as the law. He further submitted that the land measuring 8064 sq. meter in Sector-3 was earmarked for the School purposes, whereas the respondent-Society was claiming allotment of the land in question for the establishment of the College. Therefore, any kind of allotment for the College is ab initio void. Sr. He further submitted that the land measuring 8064 sq. meter in Sector-3 was earmarked for the School purposes, whereas the respondent-Society was claiming allotment of the land in question for the establishment of the College. Therefore, any kind of allotment for the College is ab initio void. Sr. Counsel further submitted that the land in question was allotted to the petitioner- Samiti on an application submitted by it in pursuance to the advertisement issued by the UIT, Bharatpur and further on Resolution No.9 of the UIT, Bharatpur in its meeting held on 08.12.2017 on 15% above the reserved price for the School. He submitted that the allotment in favour of the petitioner-Samiti was in accordance with law and in pursuance to the allotment letter dated 15.12.2017, the petitioner-Samiti had already deposited an amount of Rs.41 lakh and the remaining amount could not be deposited because of the interim order passed by the Court of Divisional Commissioner, Bharatpur, though the petitioner-Samiti was ready to deposit the remaining amount of Rs.1 Crore. He further submitted that in view of non-fulfillment of the conditions of allotment mentioned in the allotment letter dated 09.08.2017 in favour of the respondent- Society, the said allotment in its favour stood cancelled and therefore, it cannot be said that on the date of allotment of the land in question in favour of the petitioner-Samiti the land was not available and free for allotment. He further submitted that the respondent-Society in furtherance of the allotment of the land in its favour did not deposit even a single penny with the UIT, Bharatpur. Therefore, the respondent- Society cannot claim any right of the land in question. He also submitted that against the allotment of the land in favour of the petitioner- Samiti, the respondent- Society filed a suit before the Civil Court and when the respondent- Society did not get any interim order in its favour from the Civil court and the petitioner- Samiti was impleaded as a party respondent on its application, the respondent- Society got the suit dismissed as withdrawn. Sr. Counsel also submitted that the land was allotted to the respondent- Society on 15% above the reserved price. Sr. Counsel also submitted that the land was allotted to the respondent- Society on 15% above the reserved price. However, the respondent- Society in-stead of depositing the amount within the given time of thirty days, moved an application before the UIT, Bharatpur for making allotment of the land in question on 50% of the reserved price and the UIT, Bharatpur vide its letter dated 02.11.2017 forwarded the representation of the petitioner-Samiti to the State Government. Since the respondent- Society after allotment of the land in its favour did not deposit a single penny, therefore, the allotment made in favour of the respondent-Society stood cancelled and further the State Government has also not accepted the representation of the petitioner-Samiti for allotment of the land on 50% of reserved price. In such circumstances the respondent-Society cannot have any claim over the land in question. Sr. Counsel further submitted that the Court of Divisional Commissioner, Bharatpur, on a petition filed under Rule 30 of the Rules of 1974 illegally and arbitrarily allowed the petition and observed that the UIT has made re-allotment in favour of the petitioner-Samiti of the land which was already allotted to the respondent-Society, whereas the allotment made in favour of the respondent- Society was already stood cancelled. Sr. Counsel appearing for the petitioner- Samiti further submitted that the observations of the Court of Divisional Commissioner, Bharatpur that the person who submitted the application for allotment on behalf of the petitioner-Samiti was not legally valid President of the petitioner- Samiti. 5. Counsel appearing for the respondent UIT, Bharatpur, submitted that after the demand notice dated 09.08.2017 for depositing an amount in lieu of the allotment of the land, the respondent- Society vide letter dated 06.09.2017 sought extension of time of thirty days for depositing the amount. However, the respondent-Society did not deposit a single penny within one year. In absence of deposit of amount no allotment letter can be issued. Therefore, the respondent-Society did not avail the opportunity of allotment and in the above circumstances the UIT passed a Resolution dated 08.12.2017 to allot the land to the petitioner–Samiti. He further submitted that as per the lay out plan, the land in question is reserved for establishing a School whereas the respondent-Society has demanded the land for establishing a College. As per the Allotment Policy-2015 the land required for the College is 4,000-10,000 sq. He further submitted that as per the lay out plan, the land in question is reserved for establishing a School whereas the respondent-Society has demanded the land for establishing a College. As per the Allotment Policy-2015 the land required for the College is 4,000-10,000 sq. meter at the Divisional Headquarter and a College cannot be established on the land measuring 2064 sq. meter and also the land in question was not reserved for the College. He further submitted that the request of the respondent- Society for allotment of the land in question on 50% of the reserve price has also been rejected by the State Government on 05.03.2018. Counsel appearing for the UIT, Bharatpur also submitted that after allotment of the land in question to the respondent-Society and issuing a demand notice dated 09.08.2017 for depositing the amount within thirty days, the respondent- Society did not deposit even a single penny in one year. In such circumstances, the respondent-Society cannot claim any right over the land in question and the Court of Divisional Commissioner, Bharatpur, has erred in passing the impugned order dated 05.11.2018 in issuing directions to receive the amount from the respondent-Society and to issue a Patta in its favour and further setting aside the allotment made in favour of the petitioner- Samiti. 6. Mr. Saransh Saini, counsel appearing for the respondent Society (P.D. Poddar Welfare & Development Society) submitted that the respondent- Society made an application for allotment of the land for the College-School on a concessional rate. He submitted that the request for allotment of the land of the respondent- Society was considered by the UIT in its meeting held on 29.06.2016 and the UIT recommended to allot 2064 sq. meter land on 15% above the reserved price and in view of the Resolutions the allotment of the land measuring 2064 sq. meter was made in favour of the respondent-Society vide letter dated 09.08.2017. He further submitted that Clause 5.7 of the Allotment Policy-2015 provides that the allottee-institution is to be informed to deposit the amount within thirty days and in case it fails to deposit that amount within the given thirty days, the concerned UIT can allow thirty days additional time and further after sixty days the amount could be deposited with 12% interest. If the allottee-institution does not deposit the amount within a period of one year, the allotment shall stand cancelled automatically. If the allottee-institution does not deposit the amount within a period of one year, the allotment shall stand cancelled automatically. He further submitted that in view of Clause 5.7 of the Allotment Policy-2015 the allotment made in favour of the respondent- Society subsists till 08.08.2018. Therefore, any re-allotment of the land which was already allotted to the respondent-Society, if further made to any other Society, is illegal and deserves to be set-aside. Thus, the Court of Divisional Commissioner, Bharatpur has rightly set aside the allotment made to Soni Shikshan Samiti observing that the land allotted to the petitioner-Samiti was already allotted to the respondent-Society. He further submitted that though the land was allotted to the respondent- Society on 15% above the reserved price, however, the request of the respondent- Society for allotment of the said land on 50% of the reserved price was pending for consideration before the State Government but in the meantime the UIT, Bharatpur without providing an opportunity of hearing and issuing any formal order for cancellation of the allotment made of the land in question in favour of the petitioner-Samiti, is clear violation of the principles of natural justice. Therefore, no illegality has been committed by the Court of Divisional Commissioner, Bharatpur in setting aside the re-allotment of the land in favour of the petitioner–Samiti. He also submitted that the application submitted by the petitioner- Samiti for allotment of land was by one Mr. Deepak Kumar as a President of the Society, whereas Mr. Deepak Kumar was not the President of the Society. He also submitted that as per the instructions issued by the College Education Department, the land required for establishment of the College in the Session 2006-2007 is only 2000 sq. meter. 7. In SBCW P. No.3800/2019, the counsel appearing for the petitioner- UIT, Bharatpur, submitted that the land was initially allotted to the respondent- Society (P.D. Poddar Welfare & Development Society) and a demand notice dated 09.08.2017 was issued to deposit an amount of Rs.1,41,86,228/- within a period of thirty days but the respondent- Society did not deposit even a single penny till date. He further submitted that since the respondent- Society did not deposit any amount for the allotment of the land made in its favour, the allotment stood cancelled automatically. He further submitted that since the respondent- Society did not deposit any amount for the allotment of the land made in its favour, the allotment stood cancelled automatically. He further submitted that the land further allotted to Soni Shikshan Samiti after the allotment of the same in favour of the respondent-Society, stood cancelled. Merely pendency of application for consideration of the allotment on 50% of the reserved price does not create any right in favour of the respondent- Society for taking possession. He also submitted that the Court of Divisional Commissioner, Bharatpur, has erred in holding that the land which was allotted to Soni Shikshan Samiti on 08.12.2017 was not available for allotment because it was already allotted to the respondent- Society (P.D. Poddar Welfare & Development Society). He further submitted that the Court of Divisional Commissioner, Bharatpur, has also allowed the relief which was also not prayed for in the petition filed under Rule 30 of the Rules of 1974 before it. The direction issued by the Court of Divisional Commissioner, Bharatpur, for accepting the amount from P.D. Poddar Welfare & Development Society and to issue Patta in its favour, is without direction. 8. In regard to the petition filed by the UIT, Bharatpur, counsel appearing for the respondent- Society submitted that the arguments which have been submitted by them in SBCW P. No. 25637/2018, may be treated as part of the arguments in this petition also. 9. On consideration of the submissions made by the counsels appearing for both the parties and the material available on the record, the first basic issue which requires to be adjudicated is that “Whether on the date of allotment of land in favour of Soni Shikshan Samiti on 08.12.2017, the land in question was available for allotment or it stands already allotted on that date in favour of the respondent P.D. Poddar Welfare & Development Society?” 10. As per the facts on record, the respondent- Society made an application for allotment of the land for establishment of the College on 07.11.2016 and on consideration of its application, the UIT, Bharatpur, in its meeting held on 29.06.2017 calling information from the applicant/ respondent- Society asked that for what purpose they are seeking allotment of the land i.e. Primary/ Upper Primary School/ Secondary /Hr. Secondary School or the College and DPR submitted, took a decision of making recommendation for allotment of 2064 sq. Secondary School or the College and DPR submitted, took a decision of making recommendation for allotment of 2064 sq. meter land at 15% above the reserved price (5000+15%). In view of the decision of the UIT, Bharatpur, in its meeting dated 29.06.2017, the UIT issued a letter of allotment dated 09.08.2017 demanding Rs.1,41,86,228/- to be deposited within thirty days with the stipulation that the conditions of Allotment Policy-2015 will be applicable. On 06.09.2017 the respondent- Society made an application to the UIT, Bharatpur, for extension of time for depositing the amount and further on 15.10.2017 the respondent-Society made an application to the UIT, Bharatpur, for making allotment of the land in question on 50% of the reserved price and the said representation was forwarded by the UIT, Bharatpur to the State Government for consideration on 02.11.2017. The matter for consideration of the allotment of the land in favour of the respondent- Society on 50% reserved price remained pending before the State Government which was finally rejected on 05.02.2018 because the UIT, Bharatpur, wrote to the State Government for withdrawal of the letter dated 02.11.2017. 11. The State Government so as to make allotment of the land to the social, public, charitable and religious institutions under the Rules of 1974, framed a Land Allotment Policy-2015. Clause 5.7 of the Allotment Policy-2015 says that the amount for allotment of the land under the said Policy and the Rules, shall have to be deposited by the allottee institution within a period of thirty days and in case it fails to deposit that amount within given thirty days, the concerned UIT can allow additional thirty days time and further after sixty days the amount could be deposited by the concerned institution with 12% interest. Clause 5.7 of the Allotment Policy-2015 is quoted as under:- Þ5-7 laLFkkvksa ds iwoZ esa vkoafVr Hkwfe;ksa ,oa vc vkoafVr dh tkus okyh Hkwfe;ksa ds laca/k esa uxjh; fudk;ksa }kjk lacaf/kr laLFkk dks 30 fnol esa jkf'k tek djkus gsrq lwfpr fd;k tk;sxkA 30 fnol esa jkf'k tek ugha gksus ij uxjh; fudk; jkf'k tek djkus gsrq 30 fnol dk vfrfjDr le; ns ldsxhA 60 fnol dh vof/k ds i'pkr~ vxys 10 eghuks esa jkf'k tek djkus ij 12 izfr'kr C;kt fy;k tk;sxk rFkk vkosnd laLFkk }kjk dqy ,d o"kZ dh vo/kh esa jkf'k tek u djkus ij vkoaVu Lor% fujLr gks tk;sxkA ,d o"kZ dh vof/k ds i'pkr~ jkf'k tek djkus ckcr jkT; ljdkj }kjk xq.kkoxq.k ds vk/kkj ij fu.kZ; fy;k tk ldsxkAÞ Further, Clause 5.3 of the Allotment Policy-2015 provides that in case the UIT, Bharatpur, feels that the land could be allotted to the institution below the reserved price / DLC rate, the matter could be referred to the State Government for its decision who is the competent authority for the same. Clause 5.3 of the Allotment Policy-2015 is quoted as under:- ^^5-3 lacaf/kr U;kl@izkf/kdj.k@vkolu e.My@LFkkuh; fudk; izdj.k esa fopkj djus ds i'pkr~ vkjf{kr nj@Mh-,y-lh- nj ls de nj ij vkoaVu djuk ;qfDrlaxr ekurh gS rks ml fLFkfr eas jkT; Lrj ij fu.kZ; ds fy, ifjf'k"V&1 ij layXu pSd fyLV esa lwpuk ,oa nLrkostks ds LkkFk foHkkx dks izdj.k vxzsf'kr fd;k tkosxkA foHkkx ds Lrj ij vkjf{kr nj@Mh-,y-lh- nj dh 50 izfr'kr rd nj ij Hkwfe vkoafVr dh tk ldsxhA^^ 12. On an application submitted by the respondent– Society under the provisions of Clause 5.3 of the Allotment Policy- 2015 for allotment of the land in question at 50% of the reserved price, the UIT, Bharatpur, recommended its case for consideration to the State Government on 02.11.2017 which remained pending before the State Government uptil 08.02.2018. On an application submitted by the respondent– Society under the provisions of Clause 5.3 of the Allotment Policy- 2015 for allotment of the land in question at 50% of the reserved price, the UIT, Bharatpur, recommended its case for consideration to the State Government on 02.11.2017 which remained pending before the State Government uptil 08.02.2018. Clause 5.7 of the Allotment Policy-2015 nowhere says that in case the allottee institution fails to deposit the amount within thirty days or in additional thirty days (total sixty days), the allotment made in favour of the Institution shall automatically stand cancelled, whereas Clause 5.7 of the Allotment Policy-2015 says that the allottee institution can deposit the amount within thirty days from the date of allotment which can be extended by additional thirty days by the UIT and after sixty days the institution can deposit the amount with 12% interest within next ten months. Clause 5.7 clearly speaks that if the applicant/ allottee institution fails to deposit the amount within a period of one year, the allotment shall stand cancelled automatically. However, it has also been provided that even after expiry of period of one year the State Government on consideration of the case on its merits can take a decision for depositing of the amount after that one year also. 13. In the present case, no order for cancellation of allotment of land made in favour of respondent Society was ever issued by the UIT, Bharatpur before making allotment of land to Soni Shikshan Samiti. The allotment made in favour of respondent –Society cannot be treated automatically cancelled before completion of period of one year from the date of allotment i.e. 09.08.2017. 14. Taking into consideration the provisions contained in the Allotment Policy-2015 and the facts of the case, this Court finds that on the date of allotment of land in favour of Soni Shikshan Samiti, the land was not free for allotment and thus, no error has been committed by the Court of Divisional Commissioner, Bharatpur, in holding that the land was not available for allotment on 08.12.2017. Therefore, no allotment could have been made in favour of Soni Shikshan Samiti. 15. Therefore, no allotment could have been made in favour of Soni Shikshan Samiti. 15. The second issue raised before the Court of Divisional Commissioner, Bharatpur, in the petition filed by the respondent – Society was that the application made by Soni Shikshan Samiti for allotment of land was not through a proper person because the application was submitted by Mr. Deepak Kumar Soni, as the President of the Society, whereas on the date of application Mr. Deepak Kumar Soni, was not the President of the Society. 16. The petitioner- Soni Shikshan Samiti submitted before the Court of Divisional Commissioner, Bharatpur, that as per the provisions of the Rajasthan Societies Registration Act, the tenure of the President and its Executive Committee, is five years and six months. It was also submitted that the application and the documents for allotment of the land were submitted in accordance with the provisions of the Allotment Policy-2015. The Court of Divisional Commissioner, Bharatpur, in its order dated 05.11.2018 has observed that the application submitted by the petitioner- Soni Shikshan Samiti for allotment of the land through Mr. Deepak Kumar Soni was not by a competent person observing that Mr. Deepak Kumar Soni as he was not the President of the Society on 08.11.2017. 17. On perusal of the findings in this regard given by the Court of Divisional Commissioner, Bharatpur, this Court finds that the said observation and finding is not a reasoned and speaking one because no reasons have been assigned for saying that Mr. Deepak Kumar Soni was not the President of the Society on the date of application for allotment, whereas the petitioner- Samiti has specifically stated that Mr. Deepak Kumar Soni was the President of the Society. When there was a dispute that Mr. Deepak Kumar Soni was the President of the Society or not on the date of submitting the application for allotment, it was obligatory upon the Court of Divisional Commissioner, Bharatpur, to give reasons for holding that Mr. Deepak Kumar Soni was not the President of the Society. Hence, the finding given by the Court of Divisional Commissioner, Bharatpur that Mr. Deepak Kumar Soni was not the President of the Society, is without any reasons and therefore, the same is not sustainable. 18. Deepak Kumar Soni was not the President of the Society. Hence, the finding given by the Court of Divisional Commissioner, Bharatpur that Mr. Deepak Kumar Soni was not the President of the Society, is without any reasons and therefore, the same is not sustainable. 18. The third issue which emerges for consideration before this Court on the basis of arguments from both the sides is that “Whether the Court of Divisional Commissioner, Bharatpur, while considering the application under Rule 30 of the Rules of 1974 filed in respect of decision of allotment dated 08.12.2017 in favour of Soni Shikshan Samiti was in incompetency of the Court of Divisional Commissioner, Bharatpur apart from setting aside the allotment dated 08.12.2017, to issue directions to the respondent- UIT, Bharatpur, for accepting the amount from the respondent- Society in view of the allotment made in its favour and to issue patta of the land in question. 19. The respondent- Society i.e. P.D. Poddar Welfare & Development Society filed an application before the Court of Divisional Commissioner, Bharatpur, under Rule 30 of the Rules of 1974 against the Resolution No.9 dated 08.12.2017 for allotment of the land in question in favour of Soni Shikshan Samiti. Rule 30 of the Rules of 1974 provides for examination of proceedings of transfer of land by way of allotment by the UIT. Rule 30 of the Rules of 1974 is quoted a under:- “30. Proceedings of Transfer can be stayed pending Examination.- (1) The Divisional Commissioner for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness legality or propriety of any transfer of land made under the provisions of these rules by auction or allotment by any Trust call for the relevant record and may while doing so direct that pending the examination of the matter, such transfer of land shall be withheld. (2) If, after examining the record and after affording a reasonable opportunity of explanation to the parties concerned, the Divisional Commissioner is satisfied that the transfer of land by the Trust by auction or allotment is not in accordance with or is in contravention of these rules, may cancel or rescind wholly or in part any action or proceeding taken or contract entered into by the Trust regarding such transfer of land or may revise or modify the order or give any other direction as it may deem fit.” 20. Rule 30 of the Rules of 1974 provides that the Court of Divisional Commissioner, Bharatpur, after examining the record and after affording a reasonable opportunity of explanation to the parties concerned, if satisfied that the transfer of land by the Trust by auction or allotment is not in accordance with or is in contravention of these rules, may cancel or rescind wholly or in part any action or proceeding taken or contract entered into by the Trust regarding such transfer of land or may revise or modify the order or give any other direction as it may deem fit. 21. From the bare perusal of the wordings of Rule 30 of the Rules of 1974, it can be gathered that the Court of Divisional Commissioner, Bharatpur, can make examination of the proceedings of allotment in regard to which the petition has been filed and not beyond that. 22. In the present case, the respondent- Society has filed petition under Rule 30 of the Rules of 1974 in the Court of Divisional Commissioner, Bharatpur, against the Resolution No.9 dated 08.12.2017 of the UIT, Bharatpur, where a decision for making allotment of land in favour of Soni Shikshan Samiti was taken. 23. Taking into consideration the jurisdiction provided under Rule 30 of the Rules of 1974, the Court of Divisional Commissioner, Bharatpur, could have only passed the order in regard to the Resolution No.9 dated 08.12.2017. There was no any pleading or facts or prayer in regard to the allotment made in favour of the respondent Society on 09.08.2017. Hence, this Court is of the view that the order of the Court of Divisional Commissioner, Bharatpur, apart from setting aside the allotment dated 08.12.2017, the other directions issued, are without jurisdiction and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. 24. The next issue for consideration of this Court is that “Whether the allotment made in favour of the respondent – Society on 09.08.2017 in view of default in making payment of the amount, stands cancelled or the said allotment still survives?” 25. The allotment was made in favour of the respondent- Society on 09.08.2017 in view of the Resolution of the UIT dated 29.06.2017. As per the demand notice dated 09.08.2017, the amount of Rs.1,41,86,228/- was to be deposited within thirty days. The allotment was made in favour of the respondent- Society on 09.08.2017 in view of the Resolution of the UIT dated 29.06.2017. As per the demand notice dated 09.08.2017, the amount of Rs.1,41,86,228/- was to be deposited within thirty days. The respondent- Society made an application on 06.09.2017 for extension of period for depositing the amount and on 15.10.2017 the respondent-Society made a representation to the UIT, Bharatpur, for allotment of land on 50% reserved price which was forwarded by the UIT, Bharatpur, to the State Government on 02.11.2017 which was finally rejected. The provisions of Allotment Policy-2015 provides for a total period of one year for depositing the amount to the allottee institution. The respondent- Society did not deposit even a single penny neither in 30 days nor in additional 30 days i.e. total in 60 days. 26. The UIT, Bharatpur, issued an advertisement for inviting applications for allotment of land in question along-with other lands on 16.12.2016. However, prior to that, an application was earlier submitted on 07.11.2017 by the respondent- Society i.e. P.D. Poddar Welfare & Development Society for allotment of land for the College-School on a concessional rate, though the application for allotment of land was made on a concessional rate, the allotment of the land in question to the respondent–Society was made on the basis of the Resolution dated 29.06.2017 on 50% above the reserved price (5000+15% sq. yards) and a demand notice was issued to it on 09.08.2017. The application for allotment of land was on a concessional rate, whereas the advertisement was issued for allotment of the land on reserved price. There is a provision under the Rules for additionally charging 15% price to be retained by the concerned UIT. The respondent- Society if was not interested for allotment of the land on reserved price, they should have very well said at the very beginning that they want only allotment of land on a concessional rate and not on reserved price. It is also borne out from the material available on the record that the respondent- Society has to move an application for allotment of the land for College-School and the UIT sought information from the respondent-Society that for what purpose they are seeking allotment and it was responded that the allotment is being sought for establishing the College. As per the Private Education College Policy 2015-16, minimum 4000 sq. As per the Private Education College Policy 2015-16, minimum 4000 sq. meter land is required at the Divisional Headquarter for establishing the College. In the present case, a land measuring 2064 sq. meter has been allotted at the Divisional Headquarter, Bharatpur to the respondent-Society for establishment of the College, which is below the prescribed standard. It is also borne out from the notice for inviting applications for allotment of land dated 16.12.2017 that the land in question is earmarked for the School, whereas the land was allotted to the respondent-Society for establishment of the School. 27. In view of the above facts and the provisions of law including the Allotment Policy-2015 etc., this Court does not hesitate to hold that the allotment made in favour of the respondent-Society vide Resolution dated 29.06.2017 and letter dated 09.08.2017, is also dehors the provisions of the Policy, and therefore, such allotment is not sustainable and further the respondent-Society has defaulted in depositing the amount as it has not deposited even a single penny and thus the allotment dated 09.08.2017 is liable to be set aside now. 28. Before parting with the order, this Court would like to observe that the Allotment Policy-2015 needs some improvements by including conditions to safeguard the public land and misuse of the provisions. This Court finds that the Allotment Policy-2015 does not provide for any kind of deemed provision in regard to cancellation of allotment in case of default of payment by allowing the period of one year without any deposit. There is no provision for depositing some earnest money so that after auction / allotment, the allottee can be required to deposit the amount at the earliest because it is a public money. It is expected from the respondent authorities to provide some stringent provisions in the Allotment Policy which could take care of the situations when the allottee does not turn up for depositing the amount as in the present case because the respondent- Society even after allotment of land on 09.08.2017 did not deposit a single penny for a long time. 29. 29. In view of the discussion made above, this Court partly allows and disposes off both the writ petitions as under:- (i) The order of the Court of Divisional Commissioner, Bharatpur, dated 05.11.2018 to the extent of setting aside the Resolution No.9 dated 08.12.2017 for allotment of the land in favour of petitioner Soni Shikshan Samiti is upheld and further directions issued for accepting the amount from the respondent – Society (P.D. Poddar Welfare & Development Society) and to issue Patta in its favour are quashed and set aside; (ii) The amount so deposited by the petitioner- Soni Shikshan Samiti in furtherance of the allotment of land in its favour, be refunded with interest @ 9% per annum; (iii) The allotment made in favour of the respondent- Society (P.D. Poddar Welfare & Development Society) of the land in question in view of the Resolution dated 29.06.2017, is declared illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Allotment Policy-2015 and the Private Education College Policy 2015-16 and the same is declared ineffective now. (iv) The UIT, Bharatpur, is set at liberty to make fresh auction for allotment of the land in question strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Rules of 1974, Allotment Policy and the instructions issued by the Government after re-visiting the Allotment Policy in view of observations in this order. 30. In view of the orders passed in both the main petitions, both the stay applications and pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.