The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of adherence to principles of natural justice, including fair and adequate opportunity for affected persons and the need for serving notices containing reasons for proposed actions.

Prakash Tatia, J.-By all these bunch of writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 27.2.2002 by which the sale of 48 plots by the Municipal Board, Pali to the petitioners/petitioners predecessors have been cancelled. Copy of the order dated 27.2.2002 is placed on record as Annexure-13.

2. It will be worthwhile to mention facts leading to this second round of litigation before the High Court. According to the petitioners, the Municipal Board, Pali decided to develop a Dhanmandi in Pali and for that, 48 plots were developed by the Municipal Board, Pali. The said plots were allotted to the different petitioners, at the reserve price of Rs. 1.70 per square yard. According to the petitioners, the necessary sanction was granted for allotting he land by the competent authority. Sale-deeds were also executed and registered in favour of the allottees. Therefore, according to the petitioners, the petitioners became the owner of the plots in dispute, from the day when the plots were allotted to them or at the most from the day when registered the sale-deeds were executed by the Municipal Board, Pali in favour of the petitioners.

3. An anonymous complaint was received by the Secretary, Local Self Government, Rajasthan, Jaipur and acting upon that complaint, all the allotments of the plots were cancelled by the Government by order dated 17.1980 (Annexure-8). The allottees of the land noticing the order dated 17.1980, submitted representations before Local Self Government and the Government by order dated 12.1980 (Annexure-9), finding substance in the contention of the allottees, set aside the order of cancellation of the plots dated 17.1980. After almost about more than 8 years, the Deputy Secretary to the Government, Department of Local Self , by order dated 10.4.1989, again cancelled the resolution by which the land was allotted to the allottees, holding that the land allotted to 48 allottees was not in conformity with the Rajasthan Municipalities (Disposal of Urban Lands) Rules, 1974, as there is no provision in the Rules of 1974 for disposal of commercial plots by out-right sale. By the same order, it was conveyed that now all the 48 plots may be sold by auction. A copy of the order dated 10.4.1989 is Annexure-10.

4. Being aggrieved against the said order of cancellation dated 10.4.1989, cancelling the allotment of 48 plots of the various persons including the petitioners, one S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1993/1989 was preferred by the allottee Sukan Raj before the High Court. The said writ petition was allowed by the High Court vide order dated 9.1997 and the order of the Government dated 10.4.1989 was set aside. However, this Court observed that the State Government shall have liberty to pass appropriate order in the matter of disposal of above 48 plots, but after affording opportunity of hearing to the allottees.

5. According to the petitioners after about two years, a public notice was published in the news-paper-Rajasthan Patrika on 17.1999 conveying that in compliance of the directions given by the High Court in the writ petition filed by Gajraj and Sukanraj against the State & Ors. the hearing has been fixed in the Chamber of the Honble Minister, Local Self Government on 8.1999. However, according to the respondents, efforts were made to serve the notices upon the allottees and when allottees did not care to appear in response to the notices, then the notices were published in the news-paper on 17.1999, 10.1999, 2.2001, 30.9.2001, 25.2001 and 8.1.2002 and in response to the above notices, only on one day, i.e. 7.1.2001, a representative of all the 48 allottees presented himself . He also did not attend the hearing on subsequent dates and the case was adjourned for several dates and, therefore, the notice was published by the Government on 11.2002 in daily news-paper- Dainik Navjyoti but no one appeared in response to the said notices. Therefore, proceedings were taken ex parte and ultimately order d