A municipal board cannot arbitrarily cancel the sale of a plot by a resolution once the sale has been confirmed by the competent authority and the purchaser has become the owner of the plot.

1. - This appeal Under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 has been filed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court on June 26, 1986, by which the writ of respondent-petitioner in connection with a plot purchased by him at the auction conducted by the appellant Municipal Board was allowed.

2. Appellant Municipal Board Mount Abu (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Board') under took sale of several plots by auction under the scheme 'near the Tourist Bungalow'(for short 'the Scheme'). On October 14, 1973 plots were auctioned and respondent R.R. Solanki being the highest bidder for plot No. 13 measuring 222. 14 sq. metre, was called upon to deposit 1 /4th price, which he deposited. The sale was confirmed by the Collector Sirohi by the order dated December 9, 1974 (Annexure 2). Thereafter the respondent deposited the remaining 1 /4th amount as well as the charges for demarcation. The respondent request the Board twice to give him the allotment Patta but there was no response. Then on July 2, 1976 respondent was asked to attend the office He complied with the directions but in vain. On January 22, 1977 the Executive Officer of the Board again informed the respondent to contact him on February 2, 1977. That meeting also was fruitless. He was thereafter informed that the matter has been placed in the meeting of the Board and the decision would be communicated. The respondent approached the Board time and again but to no effect. Vide letter (Annexure 9), dated August 1. 1978 the respondent was informed that by a resolution the Board has cancelled the Scheme and he may, therefore, collect the amount of Rs. 4331.73. The respondent made several representations and approached the higher authorities for the redress of his grievance. On September 5. 1980 respondent was informed that in the meeting held on July 25, 1980, it had been decided that a plot in exchange to this plot may be allotted to the respondent in Ida Lakha Scheme in case he was prepared to accept it. The respondent was directed to meet the Chairman on June 6, 1981. The respondent requested the Chairman to hand over the possession of his plot to him. At the direction of the Authorities to whom the respondent had approached, the S.D.M. asked the Executive Officer to submit the matter within three days. Ultimately on September 4, 1984 the respondent was asked by the S.D.M. to appear before him on September 12, 1984. He was then informed that if he was prepared to accept any plot in other Scheme the same may be allotted to him. It being finally decided by the Board that the only relief" that can be given to the respondent is to give in exchange another plot in another Scheme, the respondent approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In reply to the writ petition the appellant Board submitted that by resolution it was decided that the land in the Scheme should not be allotted to any private individual and the same should be reserved for offices and official buildings of the Government. The learned Single Judge agreed with the contention of the respondent-petitioner that the Board could not have arbitrarily cancelled by any resolution the sale of the plot which has been confirmed by the competent authority.

3. In view of his conclusion the learned single Judge allowed the writ petition as stated earlier and directed the appellant Board to hand over the possession of the plot No. 13 measuring 222.14 sq. meter to the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of the order passed by the learned single Judge. The learned single Judge however made it clear that the order passed by him would not preclude the Board to acquire the plot, if needed, in accordance with law. The petitioner was held entitled to costs Rs. 1000/-from the Board.

4. Notice was issued to the respondent. Mr. M. Mridul put in appearance on behalf of the respondent. At the request of the learned Counsel for the parties the matter w