1 wp 3947.99 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3947 OF 1999 Tulshiram S/o Janardhan Mulik .. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra & ors. .. Respondents Shri V. G. Mete, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri K. B. Choudhari, A.G.P. for the Respondent/State. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 01ST JULY, 2011. PER COURT : . Heard Shri Mete, the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner assails the order passed by the Deputy Collector thereby granting permission to sell the land. 2. Shri Mete, the learned counsel submits that the petitioner was declared as surplus land holder by the S. L. D. T. and the said land was allotted to the respondent No. 5. The respondent No. 5 sought permission to sell the land. No such permission could have been granted. In fact, the petitioner was adjacent 2 wp 3947.99 land holder. So, it was the right of the petitioner to get the land. The learned counsel further contends that no reasons are given in the impugned order while granting the permission for exchange of land. As such, the transaction interse between the respondent is illegal and deserves to be quashed and set aside. 3. The fact that, the petitioner was declared as a surplus land holder is evident from the order passed by the S. L. D. T. and the said surplus land was allotted to the respondent. Now the petitioner cannot make any grievance about the land to be reallotted to the petitioner or that he should have the first right to purchase the land being adjacent land holder. In fact, the petitioner has no locus standi to make such a grievance. The law also does not contemplate any preferential right to the petitioner on this count. In the light of above, the writ petition being sans merit deserves to be dismissed. The writ petition is dismissed. The Rule is discharged. No costs. [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/July 11