ORDER
Shethna, J.
(1). On 14.3.1997, learned counsel Mr. Kala submitted before the Division Bench of this Court thai in case of Jag dish Singh vs. Rajasthan Housing Board (1), the Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Mr. M.G. Mukherji, Actg. C.J. (as he then was) and Mr. Bhagwati Prasad, J. held that the cancellation of allotment without giving any effective opportunity of hearing was bad. Inspite of this judgment of Division Bench, Hon’ble Mr. Bhagwali Prasad, J. dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant/petitioner though his Lordship was very much a party to that judgment of the Division Bench in Jagdish Singh’s case (supra). On the basis of it, we ordered to issue notice to the respondents calling upon them to show cause as to why this appeal should not be allowed at the admission stage itself.
(2). In response to the notice issued by this court, learned counsel Mr. Lodha appears for U.I.T. and Mr. Singhal appears for pvt. respondent No.3 in whose favour the allotment was made later on after the allotment made in favour of the appellant was cancelled.
(3). We have carefully gone through the division bench judgment and we fail to understand that how the aforesaid judgment will have any application on the facts of this case which have been brought to our notice by learned counsel Mr. Lodha.
(4). In Jagdish Singh’s case (supra), the petitioner got the possession of the land . after depositing the requisite amount in 1989 but thereafter he did not deposit the instalments till Sept., 93. The authority without giving him any notice cancelled his allotment, therefore, in March, 94, he approached this Court by way of writ petition and conditional stay was granted with an opportunity to clear off his arrears. However, the interim order was vacated on 21.2.95 on non-compliance of the conditions mentioned in the order. At the time of hearing before the Division Bench, it was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he was prepared to deposit the entire amount. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the order was passed by the Division Bench in that case.
(5). However, in the instant case, the facts are totallydifferent.lt is clear from the document produced by none else but the appellant himself at Annex. 20 of the writ petition that the allotment made in favour of the appellant was cancelled way back on 23.7.1976 and thereafter in 1983, the allotment is already made in favour of the private respondent No.3 and since then, he is in possession of the land. It may be that in 1983, the appellant had deposited the remaining amount but what has been done years back cannot be undone by depositing the amount later on. If any one is to be blamed than it is the appellant and none else.
(6). There is no question of depositing the amount in 1993 after the allotment made in his favour was already cancelled. Merely because the appellant could manage to deposit the remaining amount with the authority in 1993 would not confer him any right. In such type of cases, there is no question of principle of natural justice being involved.
(7). In view of the above discussion, this special appeal was required to be dismissed.
(8). Realising the difficulties in his way, learned counsel Mr. Kala made a request to direct the respondents to consider his case for allotment of some other plot and if it is not possible then the amount deposited by him be refunded to him with interest.
(9). If the appellant wants to make a representation, then certainly he can make a representation for which permission from the Court is not required. As and when such representation is made, the authority is required to decide the same strictly in accordance with law.
(10). If the appellant wants refund of the amount which is deposited by him in 1993, then he has to make similar representation to the authority. On receiving such representation, we are sure that the authority shall immediately take the decision and refund the amount at the earliest.
(11). With these observations, this appeal is dismissed.