The Samiti lacked jurisdiction to pass a resolution for cancellation of allotment without affording the petitioners an opportunity to be heard, and the Executive Officer was not authorized to issue the cancellation order under the Municipal Law.

1. - In both these writ petitions common questions of law and facts are involved, and therefore, both the writ petitions are heard together and disposed of by a common order.

2. Succinctly stated the facts, giving rise to both these writ petitions, are that the petitioners are journalists by profession. When the petitioners came to know that respondent-Municipal Board is making allotment of residential plots to journalists in a colony earmarked for journalists namely Patrakar Colony, both of them submitted separate applications for the allotment of a residential plot. The applications submitted by both the petitioners were scrutinised by the Municipal Board and after completing the requisite formalities, licences were issued to both the petitioners on 21st October, 1991. Subsequent to that, for the land allotted to them, Municipal Board executed a lease-deed in their favour on 31st August, 1994. It appears that the allotments made in favour of the petitioners became an eye storm for their uncle one Mr. Ram Dutt and out of personal vengeance, due to family squabble, he lodged complaint against the allotments of plots to the petitioners before District Collector, Jalore on 5th July, 2001. Taking cognizance of the complaint of Mr. Ram Dutt, Sub-Divisional Officer, Jalore was appointed as an inquiry officer. During the course of inquiry, both the petitioners submitted their reply, wherein locus-standi of the complainant was also questioned. It is also pertinent to mention here that both the petitioners made endeavour for allotment of strip of land, which was appurtenant to the land allotted to them, and the Municipal Board after following the requisite procedure allotted strip of land to them at the prevailing market rate vide order dated 19th November, 1994. When both the petitioners were contemplating to raise construction on the allotted land, there were some genuine difficulties and for which complaints were also lodged by them before the Municipal Board. Be that as it may, both the petitioners applied for grant of permission to raise construction on the allotted plots and requisite permission for raising construction was granted on 8th January, 1996. In terms of the permission granted, the requisite construction could not be carried out by the petitioners due to paucity of funds as the loans were not sanctioned to meet the expenditure for construction.

3. In the writ petitions, it is further averred that the District Collector, Jalore ordered inquiry by the Sub-Divisional Officer and thereafter referred the matters to Zila Janabhav Abhiyog Nirakaran and Satarkta Samiti, Jalore (for short, 'the Smiti') being its chairman. The Samiti thereafter called for its meeting on 19th January, 2002 and took a decision to the detriment of both the petitioners for cancellation of land allotted to them by the Municipal Board. The resolution dated 19th January, 2002 was forwarded to the Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Jalore with a direction to cancel the allotment made in favour of the petitioners. While taking cognizance of the resolution of Samiti, the Executive Officer, Municipal Board Jalore by separate orders (Annex.9) in both petitions of even date, cancelled the allotment made in favour of the petitioners. The petitioners have questioned the resolution dated 19th January, 2002 and the consequential order of cancellation of allotment (Annex.9) passed by the Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Jalore precisely on two counts that Samiti was not authorised to take such a decision and Executive Officer, Municipal Board was not competent to pass such an order. Besides that the petitioners have also challenged both these orders on the ground that the orders are in gross violation of principles of natural justice.

4. At the threshold, when the matter came up before this Court, the petitions were admitted and effect and operation of both the impugned orders were stayed. During the pendency of the writ petitions, complainant, Ram Dut