1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7974/2009. Suresh Kumar Suthar Vs. Municipal Board, Barmer & Anr. Date of Order : 10th August 2009. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. Harish Purohit, for the petitioner. ... BY THE COURT: Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the material placed on record, this Court is unable to find any reason to entertain this writ petition. The petitioner states that he made an application to the respondent Municipal Board for allotment of plot in the Mahaveer Nagar Scheme at Barmer pursuant to the public notice issued on 04.12.1986; and deposited the requisite amount. The grievance of the petitioner is that the application so made by him on 30.01.1987 has been kept pending for over a period of two decades and now the respondents have suddenly come out with the notices proposing to transfer the said land by way of auction. It is submitted that the petitioner, who had been waiting for such a long period for being allotted the land, had the legitimate expectation of consideration of his 2 application and it is entirely unjustified and unreasonable on the part of the respondents that they intend to alienate the land by way of auction. The submissions do not make out a case for interference. Merely as an applicant for allotment of the land, the petitioner cannot be considered having a legal right to claim that his application be allowed by the authorities concerned or that any particular piece of land cannot be put to auction and has to be transferred by way of allotment. If the respondents have chosen to put the land to auction instead of direct allotment on applications, the exercise cannot be faulted with. It is noticed from the material placed on record that the petitioner served a notice on the respondents as back as on 20.01.1999. The petitioner has thereafter chosen not to take any other proceedings for over a decade except allegedly making representation, lastly in the y ear 2002. In any case, as noticed, the petitioner has no such legal right wherefor the auction proceedings as adopted by the respondents be interfered at his instance. The petition fails and is, therefore, rejected. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. //Mohan//