VIKRAMAJITSEN, J. ( 1 ) THE prayers in this petition are for the quashing of the allotment made by the Delhi development Authority (DDA) in favour of varshney Samaj Hitkari Trust (Respondent no. 3) of the Community Centre-cum-Library contiguous to the Petitioner s Co-op. House building Society Ltd. It has also been prayed that the DDA be directed "to handover the said plot by allotting the same in the Petitioner s name with a view to enabling the Petitioner to avail the same for purpose of Community Centre, as it was earmarked earlier". ( 2 ) AT the threshold an objection has been taken by the Respondents that this question is no longer res integra in that it has been conclusively decided by the Division Bench that a Society cannot question the allotment of such property by the DDA to a third party. The Division Bench had decided in lpa No. 375/2003 entitled Panchshila cooperative House Building Society limited Vs. Delhi Development Authority and Ors. , inter alia, that "thus, after the land was developed as per the layout plan, only the plotted area, i. e. the area developed as residential plots was given in the appellant Society. It is for this reason that area mentioned in the Lease Deed is much less than the area mentioned in the Agreement and further that the area now shown is coloured red and blue. In view of the aforesaid provisions of the Agreement and Lease Deed, the irresistible conclusion which would be drawn is that the land in question which was shown as office complex in the layout plan did not vest in the appellant Society as it was not leased out to the appellant Society. The appellant Society, therefore, would have no right on this part of the land. We, therefore, agree with the finding of the learned Single Judge that it is only residential plots which were leased out to the appellant Society and appellant society would have no right over the disputed land. Once this finding is arrived at all other contentions of the appellant go into pale of insignificance as the appellant society had no right over the land. It is not open to the appellant Society to contend that DDA did not have any right over the said land and could not do constructions without permission from MCD. Once this finding is arrived at all other contentions of the appellant go into pale of insignificance as the appellant society had no right over the land. It is not open to the appellant Society to contend that DDA did not have any right over the said land and could not do constructions without permission from MCD. As noted above, it was argued with much vehemence that notification dated 3. 1. 68 purported to have been issued under Section 22 (1) of the Delhi Development Act was never published in any Gazette and it was argued that the respondent-DDA could not produce gazette copy. Although respondent-DDA has tried to explain that in the records of the DDA it is the certified copy which is on record, fact remain that Gazette notification is not produced. However, that would be of no consequences as once it is held that the appellant Society has no right over the disputed land, whether it is Landdo or DDA which has the authority to construct over the land is for those authorities to decide and is of no concern tot he appellants. It may be mentioned that although Ministry of works and Housing (Union of India) was impleaded as respondent in the writ petition as well as in this appeal, it has not come forward to deny the right of DDA to develop the disputed land for the purpose for which it is earmarked in the layout plan. It appears that in so far as respondent authorities are concerned, they are acting on the purported notification dated 3. 1. 68. We are of the opinion that, in a situation like this, appellant has no locus standi to challenge the act of the DDA when the basis of entire writ petition was that the land in question belongs to the appellant Society but it is found that such basis is ill-founded. No other argument was addressed. before us. As we do not find any merit in this appeal, the same is hereby dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. " ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the Petitioner has, however, sought to contend that the judgment does not have the effect of nonsuiting the petitioner for the reason that in the above case a Notification dated 3. 1. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. " ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the Petitioner has, however, sought to contend that the judgment does not have the effect of nonsuiting the petitioner for the reason that in the above case a Notification dated 3. 1. 1968 had been issued under Section 22 (1) of the delhi Development Act which has not been so done in the present case. I am, however, unable to accept this argument for the reason that a perusal of the prayers contained in the petition disclose that it has never been the petitioners case that the Community Centre stood allotted to them. The ratio of the panshshila case (supra) is clearly to the effect that what stands allotted to a Cooperative house Building Society is the aggregate of the land comprising of the individual plots allotted to the various members. The Society has no control over the Local Shopping centres. In the present case counsel for the petitioner had admitted this position. The effect is that the Petitioners have no vested right for allotment and can at best claim a preferential consideration. Mr. Rakesh Munjal, learned Senior counsel for the DDA has vehemently stressed the fact that the claim to the Community Centre has been resurrected by the present and newly elected managing Committee of the Petitioner, and the previous committees had not evinced any interest therein. He has underscored that for almost five years previous to July 2001 the Report of the Registrar of companies had not been perused. This report was necessary to elucidate whether the functioning of the Petitioner s Society disclosed and justified that the Community centre should be allotted to it. By its letter dated 24. 7. 2001 the Registrar, Cooperative societies had certified that the Petitioner had been functioning as per the provisions of the delhi Cooperative Societies Act and Rules 1972-1973, Mr. Munjal had also relied heavily on a letter dated 29. 3. 2000 authored by the honorary Secretary of the Petitioner Society recording that "we have come to know that Shri Varshney Samaj Hitkari Trust (Regd.), 56 Baldev Park, Delhi is intending to construct a dharmashala on the land proposed to be allotted by D. D. A. Shri Varshney Samaj hitkari Trust (Regd.) is a charitable society and the proposed activity shall help the middle income group an the lower income group of the community. We have no objection in such allotment and strongly recommend such allotment by D. D. A. , as there is no such dharmashala in this area". The argument that the Petitioner had no interest in the community Centre is buttressed and founded on this communication. Counsel for the petitioner has sought to explain away this letter by contending that it does not relate to the Community Centre in question. I cannot accept this argument since there appears to be no other reasonable context in which the letter could have been written. Furthermore, the lack of activity for almost five years cannot be overlooked. It is in these circumstances, and faced with these sundry obstacles, that the learned counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that the DDA is estopped from putting the Community Centre to any use other than that indicated in the Lay Out Plan. In other words all the persons who now own plot in the area could harbour legitimate expectations of the use of the Community centre for events such as marriages etc. So far as the change of the user of the community Centre is concerned this is not ventilated in any of the prayers in the writ petition. It does not call for answer in these proceedings. ( 4 ) IN these circumstances the Petition is without merit. The Petitioner is not the owner of the Community Centre as it was avowedly not allotted to it. It has shown interest therein only after considerable delay and upon the allotment being made to Respondent No. 3. Setting aside of the allotment in the circumstances narrated above would not be advisable. ( 5 ) THE writ petition is dismissed accordingly.