- (1.) MR . Pathak, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that pursuant to an advertisement, the petitioner applied for allotment of a plot being Plot No. 0/128 in May 1980 and deposited Rs. 1,950/ - being 25% of the value on 4.10.1982. Thereafter, he being a Government servant, was transferred from one place to other. Then he made representations in June 2006 for allotment of the said plot, but such request has been rejected and Rs. 9,750/ - being the balance amount, deposited by the petitioner in 2009 was returned to him. In these circumstance, he submitted that the Board be directed to allot the said plot in favour of the petitioner on receiving the balance amount.
(2.) ON the other hand, Mr. Gadodia, learned counsel appearing for the Board, submitted that after making application for allotment of plot in question and depositing sorf1a amount, the petitioner did not take any interest for three decades and therefore, the said amount was rightly returned to him under letter dated 10.12.2009. He further clarified that as the petitioner claimed that he had deposited some amount, the Board in the said letter .asked him to produce money receipt of such amount so that it could be refunded to him. He further submitted that public notices have been issued from time to time for taking back the money by the nonallotees. He also submitted that petitioner was never allotted the said plot. In spite of sufficient opportunity, petitioner could not produce any allotment/agreement. It is undisputed that after the petitioner applied for the plot in question, he slept for 30 years and then, he started claiming allotment of the plot offering payment of balance amount.
(3.) THERE is no merit in this writ petition and it is an abuse of the process of law. However, keeping in view that the petitioner is a retired employee, I am not imposing cost. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed.;