LPA No. 770 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 770 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: December 7, 2009 Rakesh Kumar Batra ...Appellant Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. Vinod K. Kataria, Advocate, for the appellant. ORDER 1. This appeal has been preferred against the order of learned Single Judge, rejecting the prayer of the appellant for allotment of land adjacent to his plot on old rate and instead directing that the said piece of land be allotted to the appellant at current price, if the same was not to be utilized properly in any other manner. The direction of learned Single Judge is as under:- “..Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the respondents to take a final decision with regard to utilization of the said piece of land within a period of two months. However, the same shall not be utilized in a manner that may create nuisance and/or cause inconvenience to the LPA No. 770 of 2009 2 peaceful living of the petitioner. In other words, if the respondents are in a position to utilize the said space by maintaining it as a green space etc., they are directed to do so in a time-bound manner and in no circumstance beyond a period of four months. However, if the respondents are unable to utilize the same in the manner noticed above, they shall be at liberty to allot the same to the petitioner, but on payment of the current price only. The petitioner's claim for allotment of the land at the price of year 2005 is declined.” 2. The appellant was allotted plot measuring 300 square metres vide letter of allotment dated 22.1.1987. Additional area of 193.75 square metres was allotted to him vide letter dated 15.3.1994 in order to make adjustment of plots on the spot. Thereafter, the appellant represented that area of 85 square metres was available adjacent to his plot which should also be allotted to him. The said prayer was rejected by the respondents by order dated 16.2.2007 (Annexure P/16). The appellant filed writ petition stating that since the piece of land was available and was unutilized it should have been allotted to him at the original rate of allotment. This claim was contested on the plea that the appellant had no such right merely because vacant area was available adjacent to the area of the appellant. 3. Learned Single Judge taking into account additional affidavit dated 20.3.2009 filed in pursuance of order of the Court, held that plot be offered to the appellant at current price, if the same was not to be utilized properly in any other manner, as mentioned in the direction of learned Single Judge. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. LPA No. 770 of 2009 3 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that since additional area of 193.75 square metres was allotted to the appellant, further area of 85 square metres should have also been allotted to him as the same was unutilized on the spot and recommendation was made in favour of the appellant by the concerned officer. 6. We are unable to accept the submission. 7. Allotment being of plot measuring 300 square metres in favour of othe appellant, no right accrued in his favour for further allotment merely because some unutilized area was lying vacant adjacent to his plot or because further area of 193.75 square metres was also allotted to the appellant. 8. The matter having been given due consideration by learned Single Judge in the impugned order, we do not find any ground to interfere with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. 9. The appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE December 7, 2009 (GURDEV SINGH ) prem JUDGE