1. Members of one Community (Khandelwal) residing at Indore have formed two Public Trusts. One Trust is registered as Shri Khandelwal Trust who is the petitioner herein whereas, the other trust is registered as Smt. Kasturbai Sukharam Khandelwal Trust - the respondent No. 3 herein. The object for which these two trusts are formed by the Members of one sect is more or less common. 2. The petitioner by filing this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution has challenged the action of the Indore Development Authority the respondent No. 1 by which, it rejected the application made by the petitioner for allotment of land for construction of community hall whereas it allowed the application made by the respondent No. 3 - Trust for construction of Community Hall. This is what the IDA resolved in its meeting held on 4.3.1991 (Annexure R-3) while considering the case of both these trusts for allotment of land:- ^^fo"k; Øekad&3 ;kstuk Øekad 74&lh lSDV ^^lh** esa dE;qfuVh gky ds fy, Hkw[kaM vkcafVr djus ds laca/k esaA ladYi Øekad 21 fnukad 11-2-1991 ¼uLrh Øekad nh&2&511&78@89½ fopkjksijkar ;g fu.kZ; fn;k x;k gS fd ,d gh LFkku ij [kaMsyoky] lekt ds nks VªLV dh Hkwfe nsuk mi;qDr ugha gksxkA QyLo:i Jherh dLrwjhckbZ lq[kjkt [kaMsyoky VªLV bankSj dh 50]000 oxZQqV Hkwfe :i;s 15@& Áfr oxZQqV dh nj ls vkcafVr djus dh Lohd`fr Ánku dh xbZ rFkk [kaMsyoky VªLV bankSj dk vkosnu fujLr fd;k x;kA** 3. It is this order (decision) of IDA which is impugned by the petitioner Trust by filing this petition. A writ of mandamus is then sought to allot the land in question to petitioner. 4. Respondents have filed their separate return justifying the allotment in question. 5. Heard Shri G.M. Chafekar, learned senior counsel with Shri V.K. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri. Y.I. Mehta, Smt. V. Phaye, Smt. Waghmare, learned counsel and Shri S. Mukati, learned Government Advocate for respondents. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the impugned decision took me to the correspondence that the petitioner had with the respondent-IDA on their application made for allotment. According to learned counsel, when the IDA has in fact and in principal agreed for allotment of land to the petitioner-Trust then in that view of the matter, the rejection of their application is an act of arbitrary action, if not illegal to say that. According to learned counsel, when the IDA has in fact and in principal agreed for allotment of land to the petitioner-Trust then in that view of the matter, the rejection of their application is an act of arbitrary action, if not illegal to say that. Learned counsel urged that the reasons that led to rejection and are now visible when one read the impugned resolution can never be regarded as cogent one and hence it need to be quashed and instead, the allotment of land be made in favour of petitioner rather than in favour of respondent No. 3. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents in substance supported the impugned action being reasonable, fair and legal and hence deserved to be upheld legal submissions such as no interference in writ jurisdiction, disputed questions of facts being involved and hence no interference were also taken in aid to the main submissions to defend the action. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record of the case, I find no merit in the writ. It deserves to be dismissed resulting in upholding of the impugned action complained of in this writ. 9. The only question that really to be seen is, whether action of the IDA in allotting the land to respondent No. 3 is proper or not and whether the reasons that led to rejection of petitioner's application for allotment of land are or can be regarded as being legal and proper? 10. In my opinion, the IDA was perfectly justified in its approach when it decided to allot the land to respondent No. 3. The main object for which the land was to be allotted to the Members of one community was "construction of community hall." Obviously, the land could not have been allotted to both the trust for construction of two community halls for the simple reason that both the trust belong to same community, they have same object to carry on. Merely because two trusts have made applications having separate legal entity by itself does not give them right to claim the land. The main objective before IDA was to allot the land for construction of one Community Hall for the benefit of Khandelwal Community. This was achieved when it decided to allot the same to respondent No. 3. Merely because two trusts have made applications having separate legal entity by itself does not give them right to claim the land. The main objective before IDA was to allot the land for construction of one Community Hall for the benefit of Khandelwal Community. This was achieved when it decided to allot the same to respondent No. 3. In my opinion, there was absolutely nothing wrong on the part of IDA to observe that land cannot be allotted to both the trusts but it has to be given to only one. 11. The jurisdiction of the writ Court in such cases is only to examine, whether decision taken by a authority is reasonable or whether it is actuated with some extraneous consideration involving some arbitrariness. In my opinion, the impugned action does not involve any act of arbitrariness nor it involves any extraneous consideration. The petitioner-Trust did not have any legal right as such to get the land. At best what they could expect from the authority is for consideration of their case which was done in this case. Undoubtedly, the benefit of allotment is extended to the community of petitioner's trust but it is not through petitioner's trust but respondents-Trust. It does not in my opinion make the decision as such to be bad. 12. In view of aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in the writ. It is accordingly dismissed. 13. No costs. Security amount, if deposited by the petitioner, be refunded as per rules.