1. - Greed, whether in an individual, or in a Corporation, or even in a State, is a cardinal sin. Allured by the elusive El Dorado, like the conquistadors, at times, the State can plunder the Constitutional treasure trove of rights and duties. When the State behaves like a drunken elephant in a lotus pond, the task of reining in the mammoth falls on the Judiciary. For, State excess invite judicial intervention. The present case is a paradigm example of the State acting as a modern day King Midas.

2. The bone of contention between the petitioner, on the one hand, and the State and the Urban Improvement Trust, Kota (the UIT, for short), on the other hand, is a piece of land which initially belonged to the Instrumentation Ltd. (IL for short), a Central Government undertaking. In order to fully comprehend the dispute in the present case, it is imperative to first understand the history of the land.

3. In order to encourage industrialization in Rajasthan, the Central Government decided to establish the IL in Kota. For this purpose, on 16-4-1970, the Revenue department of the Government of Rajasthan allotted about 400 acres of land to the IL in Kota. However, despite the best of efforts, after three decades, the IL became a sick industry. The task of reviving the sick industry fell on the State Government and on others. Therefore, a decision was taken that out of the 400 acres of land allotted to the IL, about 90 acres of land would be surrendered to the State Government. The said land would be referred to as the surplus land.

4. In order to dispose of the surplus land, vide order dated 3-6-1999, the State Government constituted a Committee headed by the Collector, Kota. The said Committee consisted of the following persons namely, the Collector, Kota as the Chairperson, the General Manager of the Instrumentation Ltd., the Chief Accounts Officer of the Industry Department, and the Senior Regional Manager of Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation (RIICO, for short). According to the order dated 3-6-1999, the Committee was to dispose of the surplus land in accordance with the local laws or byelaws. However, for the purpose of the present case it is essential to notice that the said Committee was an independent entity which had nothing to do whatsoever with the UIT, Kota.

5. Further, vide letter dated 1-4-2000, the Deputy Secretary, Industries informed the Collector, Kota that the Government has decided to dispose of the surplus land through RIICO. RIICO was to act as an agency of the State Government and was to dispose of the land in accordance with the RIICO Disposal of Land Rules, 1979. Moreover, the surplus land was to be disposed of through pubic auction under the supervision of the Committee constituted for the purpose under the chairmanship of the Collector, Kota. Further, RIICO was required to deposit the proceeds from the sale of the surplus land with the State Government. The State Government would then transfer the amount to the Instrumentation Ltd. as interest free loan.""

6. However, subsequently, vide letter dated 14-8-2000 the Deputy Secretary informed the Collector that vide order dated 3-6-1999, a Committee was constituted for disposing of the surplus land of IL. In pursuance of the letter dated 1-4-2000, the Government has granted approval for substituting the UIT, Kota in place of RIICO for the purpose of conversion and sale of the surplus land. The surplus land was being placed at the disposal of the UIT, but the sale was to be under the supervision of the Committee. Moreover, the other conditions contained in the letter dated 1-4-2000 would continue. Thus, the UIT would act only as an agent of the Government while converting and selling the surplus land.""

7. These facts make the following conclusions obvious: firstly, the surplus land did not vest in the UIT. It merely holds the land as an agent of the Government. Secondly, the UIT is to sell of the land under the supervision of the Com