Honble VERMA, J.–The grievance of the petitioner is that he is landless and homeless person who is in need of a plot, and, therefore, seeks direction to the respondents for allotting a plot for construction of residence in Jaipur City as per entitlement under Rajasthan Municipalities (Disposal of Urban Land) Rules, 1974 (Here-in- after to be referred as the Rules of 1974). (2). The Rules of 1974 do provide for disposal of plots which the competent authority decides to dispose of either be way of allotment or by way of auction. It is the contention of the petitioner that certain notification was issued in the year 1983 where a movement has been launched by the State Government for housing Organisation and Urban Development under different heads which included dispo- sal of cases relating to sale of land (including stray plots and strips of lands), regularisation of old possessions, allotment of land to back-ward castes and weaker sections, conversion agricultural land, cases of allotment to institutions and development plans. Counsel for the petitioner submits that under this notification certain unauthorised possession of certain persons have been regularised whereby the vacant stray plots, lying in different parts of the City, have not been sold or allotted. The petitioner wants to submit that on the one hand the State had been regularising the possession of the tress-passers whereas the genuine persons who do require plots for residence have been ignored and thus, encouragement has been given to the tress-passers. However, the petitioner is not challenging the ac- tion of the respondents in regularising the possession of unauthorised persons. On the direction of this Court, the respondent No.5 had also filed the details of certain vacant lands situated in the City. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the vacant land, list of which has been provided showing the locations should either be allotted or put to auction so that the petitioner be allowed to purchase one of such vacant land. Counsel for the petitioner has not been able to produce any notification or any provisions of the rules, whereby it might have been made mandatory or even salutory for compelling the respondents to sell the vacant land where-ever it is stated as a compelling duty of the State. Counsel for the petitioner has not been able to produce any notification or any provisions of the rules, whereby it might have been made mandatory or even salutory for compelling the respondents to sell the vacant land where-ever it is stated as a compelling duty of the State. It cannot be denied that planned housing scheme is required and even if any land is lying vacant or available, it is upto the respondents to frame the scheme for disposal of any such vacant land, if the respondents so consider it appropriate after going through and scrutinizing all the relevant factors in disposing of such vacant plots. The petitioner apprehends that if such plots are not sold immediately, there is every likelihood that these plots may also be tres-passed and under the garb of the notification of unauthorised posses- sions certain tres-passers would gain march on the rights of the persons like the petitioner who want the State to act speedily in disposing of such plots before they are tres-passed. Apprehension of the petitioner is appreciable and the State is duty bound to protect the public property from such tres-passers. It is not always necessary that the State is bound to sell the plots to the tres-passers. The State may even evict them in accordance with law, if any particular person tres-passes is found to be in illegal possession. It is expected from the State to see that the plots lying vacant in Jaipur City are not tres-passed any more and the illegal encroachment or tres-passing is also got vacated if such possession do not fall under the tests of regularisation of the unauthorised possessions. (3). The petitioner prays that he should be allotted a house under 1974 Disposal Rules as such. At present the petitioner has no such right for compelling to the State for allotting the house. (3). The petitioner prays that he should be allotted a house under 1974 Disposal Rules as such. At present the petitioner has no such right for compelling to the State for allotting the house. However, whenever the respondent frames any scheme or any land becomes available with the respondents and a conscious decision is taken by the respondents to dispose of any such land by way of allotment or by way of auction or sale in whatever manner, the petitioner is at liberty to apply under the rules whenever such occasion arises but in the circumstances the contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted that only because of the reason there is certain land lying vacant, he should be allotted a plot out of that vacant plot. (4). The writ petition has no merit and is dismissed no order as to costs.