M.L. Joshi, J.
1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constition of India praying for quashing the impugned order dated 26.8.1974 (Ex. 1) passed by the respondent No. 2, It has been further prated in the petition that the non-petitioners be restrained from dispossessing the petitioner from the land in dispute.
2. The material facts which are relevant for the purpose of disposal of the petition are as follows. The petitioner was allotted 25 bighas of land comprising Murbba No. 137/45 in Chak No. 8K in Tehsil Vijaynagar, District Sri Gangnagar. It is alleged that after the allotment of the aforesaid land, the petitioner invested thousands of rupees in levelling and in improving the land in question and has been paying price of the said land in instalment and has paid one instalment of Rs. 840/-.
3. The case of the petitioner is that the non-petitioner No. 2 without giving any notice to the petitioner has cancelled the allotment in respect of the aforesaid land on the ground that the petitioner does not live in Chak abadi wherein the aforesaid Murbba is situated The petitioner's further case is that the cancellation order is void because it is in violation of the principles of natural justice as no opportunity of being heard was given to the petitioner. The State has not filed a return and therefore, irresistible conclusion on is that the Stale has no courage to deny the facts asserted in the writ petition.
4. The only contention raised by Mr. Shrimali learned Counsel for the petitioner before me is that the impugned order is invalid as it is in violation of the principles of natural justice. As stated above the State has not filed any return to show that any notice was given to the petitioner before passing the order of cancellation of allotment of the Murbba in question. Further from the perusal of the impugned order of cancellation of allotment also it transpires that excepting recording of the statement of the grandson of the petitioner, there is nothing to show than any notice was given to the petitioner himself This cannot be said to be a sufficient opportunity of being heard to the petitioner himself It was incumbent upon the authority concerned to afford adequate opportunity to the petitioner before ordering the cancellation as his proprietary tights in the Murbba were to be affected The order is therefore, without jurisdiction and cannot be upheld. A similar view was taken by me in civil writ petition No. 700/75 decided January 14, 1976 Gurmail Singh v. State of Rajasthan and Lodha, J. in S.B. Civil writ petition No. 3364/74 Jagdish v. State.
5. In the result the writ petition it accepted. The impugned order Ex. 1 dated 26.8.1974 is quashed. The respondents are directed to decide the case afresh after giving proper notice to the petitioner in accordance with law.
6. Let the copy of this order be forwarded to the Assista it Commissioner, Colonization, Rajasthan Canal Project, Sri Vijaynagar for compliance. I further direct that the petitioner shall appear before the respondent No. 2 on 14th of February, 1978. Mr. Shrimali the learned Counsel for the petitioner takes notice on behalf of the petitioner and undertakes to inform the petitioner of the aforesaid date. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case the parties are left to bear their own costs.