The Divisional Commissioner had the power to examine and cancel the transfer of land, and the petitioner-Society had no legal right to claim allotment of land based on the Trust's decision.

JUDGMENT

Ashok Kumar Gaur, J. - The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-Society challenging the order dated 13.12.2000 issued by the Secretary, Urban Improvement Trust, Kota and the minutes of the 149th meeting dated 18.11.2000 of the Urban Improvement Trust, Kota (hereinafter shall be referred to as "the Trust").

2. The brief relevant facts of the case are that the petitioner-Society started Primary School in the year 1982, which was upgraded to Senior Secondary level in the year 1992-93, known as "Maabharati Vidhya Bhawan". The petitioner-Society in the year 1998 established a separate girls school, known as Maabharati Girls Secondary School and also established a college of graduation level in the year 1998, known as "Maabharati Girls College".

3. The petitioner-Society in the year 1991 had applied for allotment of land on concessional rate from the Trust and about 4,300 Sq.Mtrs. of land was allotted to the petitioner-Society in Mahaveer Nagar-II, Kota for Maabharati Vidhya Bhawan. Since the petitioner-Society had established a separate Girls Secondary School in the year 1998 as well as a Girls College of graduation level, the petitioner-Society was not having adequate land, applied for allotment of approximate 40,000 Sq.Mtrs. of land.

4. The petitioner-Society has pleaded in the writ petition that the case of the petitioner-Society for allotment of land for above mentioned two institutions was put in the meeting of Land Allotment Sub Committee held on 21.04.1998 and Item No. 28 of the minutes of the meeting of the said Committee, dealt with the allotment matter of land to the petitioner-Society and it was decided that the land could be allotted to the petitioner-Society for educational institutions in Arogya Nagar Scheme in Kota and the land use was also required to be changed from commercial to educational purposes.

5. The petitioner-Society has pleaded that the matter for allotment of land to the petitioner-Society was placed in the 138th meeting of the Trust held on 24.04.1998 and it was found that the petitioner-Society was entitled for allotment of 39,900 Sq.Mtrs. of land (by mistake it was typed out as 3,99,000 Sq.Mtrs.) and the land was to be allotted at 50% of the reserve price and further decision was taken to change the land use from commercial to educational purposes.

6. The petitioner-Society has further pleaded that decision was also taken to issue demand notice to the petitioner-Society and only after depositing the amount @ Rs. 450/- per Sq.Mtr., change in land use was to be made. The petitioner-Society has further pleaded that they waited for sufficient time but no letter was received by them and as such, request was made to the UIT authorities to issue the letter for depositing the requisite amount.

7. The petitioner-Society has pleaded that they were shocked to receive the order dated 13.12.2000 sent by the Secretary, UIT, Kota mentioning therein that the Divisional Commissioner, Kota had made enquiry in the matter of allotment of land to the petitioner-Society and had written a letter dated 26.09.2000 to the Trust for cancellation of allotment and to inform the State Government in 149th meeting of Trust held on 18.11.2000. It was also communicated that the earlier decision for allotment of land was quashed and the security money of Rs. 5,000/-, deposited by the petitioner-Society, was ordered to be refunded.

8. The petitioner-Society is said to have made inquiries from the respondents and learnt that cancellation was done as per the enquiry report of the Divisional Commissioner and without affording any opportunity of hearing & without disclosing any reason, the earlier decision dated 24.04.1998 of the Trust was reversed, depriving the petitioner-Society to get the allotment of land.

9. The petitioner-Society has pleaded that it also obtained minutes of meeting of the Trust held on 18.11.2000 and found that only on the basis of directions given by the Divisional Commissioner, the UIT authoritie