much as in the case of similarly situated persons, orders have been issued for reconveyance of the unutilized land as is evident from Exhibit P1. The petitioner has a further case that in the said reconveyed land, huge multistoreyed building complexes have been constructed. Petitioner claims that Exhibit P5 judgment of this Court in W.P.C. No. 34904 of 2018 is issued in a similar circumstance and he is entitled for a similar treatment. In view of the above, the petitioner again approached the District Collector by filing Exhibit P6 representation dated 01.10.2020 requesting to reconsider Exhibit P4 order taking into consideration Exhibit P1 order of reconveyance of land issued in favour of similarly situated persons and also Exhibit P5 judgment of this court in W.P.C. No. 34904 of 2018. The petitioner contends that the said land is the only property owned by him and he has serious health problems and his family is living in acute penury and therefore he is approaching the 3rd respondent with a request to reconsider Exhibit P4 order. Exhibit P4 is a cryptic order without taking into consideration any of the contention raised by the petitioner. Therefore, I feel that the issue must be reconsidered by the 3rd respondent, District Collector, taking into consideration the various contentions raised by the petitioner in Exhibit P6 representation dated 01.10.2020. To facilitate a proper reconsideration of the matter, I set aside Exhibit P4 order dated 08.09.2016 passed by the 3rd respondent, with a consequential direction to the
