Honble SHETHNA, J.–The petitioners land in question was initially acquired for constructing a hotel by the Municipal Board of Mount Abu. The land adjacent to the petitioners land was deacquired on which the other person had already constructed a hotel since long, however, the land of the petitioner was not deacquired. Relying upon the order dated 15.11.95 (Annexure 3) passed by the Division Bench of this Court, learned counsel Mr. Vyas submitted that the land of the petitioner is deemed to have been released from acquisition, therefore, necessary permission ought to have been granted. He further submitted that the petitioner filed a writ petition No. 3022/98 before this Court which was disposed of by Honble Bhagwati Prasad, J. on 9.4.99 with the observations that the petitioner has so far not moved the Municipal Board for seeking permission, therefore, no writ petition would lie and the petitioner was advised to move the Municipal Board for seeking permission for raising construction. Accordingly, the petitioner applied before the respondent Municipal Board which application was dismissed on 23.4.99 on two grounds:- (1) that the land on which permission was sought for construction is an agricultural land which has not been converted into non-agricultural use and (2) that the State of Rajasthan by the impugned notification dated 7.4.99 (Annex.8) declared the entire municipal limit area of Mount Abu as prohibited area for raising construction. The petitioner has challenged the impugned notification dated 7.4.99 Annex.8) and the impugned order dated 23.4.99 (Annex.7) rejecting his application for construction. (2). Learned counsel Mr. Vyas for the petitioner vehemently submitted that when the land adjacent to the petitioners land was deacquired and the owner of that land was allowed to put up the construction on that land, then to deny the permission of the petitioner, whose case is similarly situated to that case, would amount to violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. However, there is no material on the record to show that the owner of the adjacent land who was granted permission after his land was deacquired, got the land converted from agricultural to non- agricultural use. That apart, in view of the recent judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the environment cases, the State of Rajasthan has published a notification dated 7.4.99 (Annex.8) declaring the municipal limit area of Mount Abu as prohibited. That apart, in view of the recent judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the environment cases, the State of Rajasthan has published a notification dated 7.4.99 (Annex.8) declaring the municipal limit area of Mount Abu as prohibited. If, on that ground, the Municipal Board, Mount Abu has refused permission to the petitioner to construct a hotel on a land which is abadi land, then it cannot be said that the impugned order at Annexure 7 is in any way bad or illegal. Regarding the impugned notification dated 7.4.99 (Annex.8), the only submission was made by the learned counsel Mr. Vyas that the State Government cannot take away the rights of the persons from raising construction in municipal limit of Mount Abu. This is an administrative decision taken by the State Government keeping in mind the erosion and destruction of the jungle in the municipal limit of Mount Abu and the serious environment problems created in granting permission for construction at random. If in public interest at large, such notification is issued, then it cannot be said to be illegal or bad in any manner. (3). In view of the above discussion, this petition fails and is dismissed.