The UIT cannot take law into its own hands and must follow the due process of law.

1. - By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed that the Urban Improvement Trust, Udaipur be directed to restore possession of the land in question, which had been allotted to him as far back as on 13-2-1962 and illegally taken possession of by it from him on 30th December, 1975.

2. A show cause notice was served on the Urban Improvement Trust, Udaipur, to contest, it the latter so desired, why the writ petition be not admitted.

3. The Urban Improvement Trust, Udaipur, bats filed a return to the show cause notice and I have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties at some length.

4. The main question urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Urban Improvement Trust Udaipur (which will hereinafter be referred to as the U.I.T) had no authority or jurisdiction to forcibly take possession of the property in question from him. The question arises in the following circumstances.

5. The plot in question was allotted to the petitioner being the highest bidder by auction for a sum of Rs. 19,000/- on 12-2-1962. 25% of the bid amount of the plot, i.e., Rs. 4, 750/- was paid by the petitioner at once, but as regards the balance of the sale price, it appears, that the petitioner was not able to pay the same within one month of the date of the allotment order, as stipulated, According to the terms of the allotment agreed to between the parties, the U.I.T could have cancelled the allotment on account of the failure of the petitioner to deposit the balance of the sale price within one month of the allotment letter, but the U.I.T. did not do so and allowed indulgence to the petitioner to pay the amount even after the expiry of seven years on condition that interest would be paid on tint amount. The petitioner, it is stated, took advantage of this concession and he deposited the full sale price with interest and got possession of the land on 25th October, 1869 However, the petitioner turned round and filed a suit in Court of Additional Civil Judge, Udaipur, for getting back the amount of into rest from the U.I.T. I am given to understand that suit has been dismissed and the appeal by the petitioner is pending. At this stage it may be mentioned that by its letter dated 8-4-70 the U.I.T. cancelled the allotment of the land in question in favour of the petitioner on account of breach of certain conditions of the allotment and on 11-4.70 the petitioner filed another suit in the same court for injunction restraining the UIT from interfering with his posse, ion. This suit was disposed of by the Addl. Civil Judge, Udaipur, on 6.12.75. The suit in respect of 449 Sq. ft., alleged to be in excess, was dismissed, but regarding the rest of the land it was observed that the UIT would dispossess the petitioner only in accordance with law. I am given to understand that an appeal preferred by the UIT is pending against the decree passed by the Additional Civil Judge, Udaipur.

6. However, in the mean while on 29.12.75 the UIT served a notice upon the petitioner to vacate his possession from the land in question and on the next day, that is, on 30th December, 1975, it actually dispossessed the petitioner In these circumstances the petitioner filed this writ application on 7.1.76 for the relief mentioned above.

7. The writ application has been opposed on behalf of the UIT on number of grounds out of which the principal are that the petitioner has not acquired any right on the land in question inasmuch as no sale deed has been executed in his favour, that he had been held guilty of forgery by the learned Additional Civil Judge, that the matter is sub justice before the civil court and criminal prosecution hap also been launched against the petitioner as well as certain employees of the UIT for having committed the forgery, and lastly there are disputed and controversial facts for which in the circumstances of the case, the writ is not a proper remedy.

8. In support of his contention that the