[2025:RJ-JP:1037] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4797/2010 Sadguru Siksha Samiti having its office at 17, Ramnagaria, Nrisingh Vihar, Jagatpura Jaipur; through its President Smt. Godawari wife of Shri Ram Prakash, resident of 13/1030, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Rajasthan Housing Board, Jaipur Through its Commissioner. 2. Deputy Commissioner, Circle I Rajasthan Housing Board, Pratap Nagar, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hemant Gupta For Respondent(s) : Ms. Arpita Joshi for Mr. P.C. Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN Order 08/01/2025 1. This petition was filed aggrieved of order dated 03.02.2010 cancelling the allotment of the plot to the petitioner. Further, direction was sought to the respondent to allow the petitioner to deposit the price of the land. 2. The brief facts are that the respondent- Rajasthan Housing Board, Jaipur in a meeting convened on 30.11.2006 allotted a land measuring 5200 square metres in Sector 26, Pratap Nagar, Jaipur. The petitioner was required to deposit 2% of the land price within fifteen days for issuance of allotment letter. The balance amount of Rs.1,56,14,542/- was to be deposited within three months. On deposit of 2% amount, the allotment letter was issued. The [2025:RJ-JP:1037] (2 of 2) [CW-4797/2010] petitioner failed to deposit the balance amount and the allotment was cancelled. Hence, the present petition. 3. On 12.04.2010, learned counsel for the petitioner on instructions made statement that if ten days time is granted, the petitioner will deposit the total amount in terms of the demand note served on 13.02.2009. The operation of the order dated 03.02.2010 was stayed subject to petitioner depositing the amount in terms of the demand notice within ten days. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that inspite of making statement on 12.04.2010, the petitioner was unable to deposit the amount as required under the allotment conditions. 5. The petitioner has failed to adhere to the statement made before this Court and inspite of passing of fourteen years, has not deposited the price of the plot. 6. In such circumstances, no interference is called for in writ jurisdiction. The writ petition is dismissed. 7. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks liberty to avail remedy for refund of 2% amount deposited. 8. Needless to say that the petitioner shall be at liberty to avail remedies in accordance with law for redressal of surviving grievances. (AVNEESH JHINGAN),J Simple Kumawat /52