JUDGMENT 1. - This is an appeal against dismissal of writ petition by the learned single Judge. 2. The appellant had challenged before the learned single Judge, the Order dated August 29,1992 passed by the Director, Local Bodies, Jaipur to set aside the Order dated December 14, 1990, passed by the Municipal Board, Jaisalmer allotting a strip of land to the appellant. 3. The appellants case before the learned single Judge was that he had purchased a plot of land admeasuring 70 x 33 from one Prabhu Dayal on April 9, 1990. On July 19, 1990, he applied for 100 square feet of land situated adjacent to his plot. On December 14,1990, the land was allotted to the appellant. Respondent No.4 Brij Mohan Bhatia challenged this allotment by filing revision application under Section 300 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act before the Director, Local Bodies, Jaipur. This revision application was allowed on August 29,1982. 4. The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that when the strip of land lies in front of the two houses and adjacent to the land of two persons, then before making the allotment, notice should have been given to the owners of the adjacent houses also giving them an opportunity to compete for allotment of land. 5. The perusal of the Order of Director Local Bodies would show that it was found by the learned Director that before the allotment of the strip of land, the owners of the adjacent houses of land were not provided opportunity to object to allotment in favour of the appellant or to compete tor the allotment of the strip of land. The learned Director also observed that no sanction under Rule 30 of the Rajasthan Municipalities (Disposal of Urban Lands) Rules, 1974 was obtained. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that a public notice was given before the allotment and no objections were received. 7. The relevant portion of Rule 23 of the Rules is reproduced for ready reference, hereunder : 23. Strip of Land. - (1) Strip to be sold at market value and its determination. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that a public notice was given before the allotment and no objections were received. 7. The relevant portion of Rule 23 of the Rules is reproduced for ready reference, hereunder : 23. Strip of Land. - (1) Strip to be sold at market value and its determination. - Small strips of land which are not fit to be disposed of as plots shall be sold to the owners of the adjoining plots at the market value to be calculated keeping in view the prevailing price of land as ascertained from the preceding sale of land in the area. Such strip of land shall be disposed of on an outright sale of the adjoining property is free-hold, and leased it out, the adjoining property owner has lease-hold rights. (2) Auction. - Where two or more persons are interested in the strip there shall be auction only between those where plots or building adjoining the strip of land provided that before auctioning such strip of land a public notice shall be issued. (3) ................ .............. .............. 8. It Is clear from the bare reading of the aforesaid provision that strip of land has to be sold to an adjoining plot holder only. Obviously therefore the adjoining plot holder if they are more than one, have a right to compete for the sale of strip of land in their favour. 9. Whether there are more than one adjacent plot holder or not, can be ascertained from the situation of the strip of land itself. There is no question of public notice being given of intention to sale the strip of land. It has therefore, not been provided in sub-rule (1) of Rule 23 that any notice would be given of disposal of strip of land. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 23, provides for public notice to be given only in case where two or more persons are interested in the strip of land and auction has to be held amongst them and a public notice seems to have been provided only to apprise the public that the strip of land is being claimed by the adjoining owner so that any objection to the sale of the strip of land which general public may have be brought to the notice of the authority. The objection may be as to the land not falling within the definition of strip of land or to the market value also but it is very clear that only the adjoining plot holders can claim the strip of land and can compete for the sale of such strip of land. It is, therefore, inherent in the situation that before disposing of any strip of land, the Municipal Authorities are under an obligation to notify the intention of the disposal of a strip of land to the owners of the adjoining plots. Public notice in this respect is neither needed nor is advisable as the Municipal Authorities ought to know who are the owners of the adjoining plots, in respect of the strip of land intended to be sold. 10. In the present case, it is clear that the appellant is not the only person owing in a plot adjoining the strip of land. Respondent No.4 also falls in that category. He had therefore, a right to compete for acquiring the strip of land and therefore an auction under R.30, had to be held. This not having been held, the sale of strip of land in favour of the appellant was clearly unlawful. 11. We therefore, find no reason to interfere with the well considered order of the learned single Judge. We also find no fault in the order on the point of cancellation of the building permission as it has been rightly held by the learned single Judge that the Director had left the matter with the Municipal Board itself and has not decided against the appellant on the point finally.In the circumstances, the appeal fails and is dismissed There shall be no order as to costs.Appeal dismissed. *******