Petitioner is holder of residential flat No. 2 on ground floor located at Hospital Road Gandinagar Jammu, acquired from respondent No. 2 on lease hold basis. 2. It is stated that allotment of the ground floor was made on higher price and the ground floor flats be declared to have right over portion of the land appurtenant to the flats and up to the pathways. It is further stated that though, the residential flats are yet to be developed fully in terms of its essential features like parking, and sewerage space respondent No. 2 proposed to raise and develop another residential block adjoining the residential building of the petitioner, affecting the living conditions of occupiers of the building including the petitioner. Further contention of the petitioner is that the space available adjoining to the existing flats is of such a small dimension, that it cannot admit construction of any adjoining residential blocks. It was clearly revealed by respondent No. 2 at the time of allotting the flats including that of the petitioner that the area around the existing block will be firstly developed and the additional residential blocks constructed later on. It is also stated that the proposed construction of additional residential blocks on the space existing near residential building was never conceived in the original plan. This being after thought planning, is unfair, unreasonable and detrimental to the living conditions of the inhabitants of the existing flats including the petitioner. The petitioner has therefore, assailed the bonafide and fairness of the respondent No. 2 in constructing the proposed residential blocks on the premises, housing residential building, invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. The stand of the respondent No. 2 in his reply is that while advertising the flats, the petitioner along others applied for allotment and examined the brochure which clearly indicated that three blocks are to be constructed out of which two were of the same construction and 3rd block of different size. It is further stated that the petitioner accepted all the terms and conditions at the time of handing over possession of the flat, after allotment on lease hold basis. The Housing Board has already modified the scheme and the gap of 29ft.was kept on the side of newly under construction block as against of 8ft kept in original approved plan. It is further stated that the petitioner accepted all the terms and conditions at the time of handing over possession of the flat, after allotment on lease hold basis. The Housing Board has already modified the scheme and the gap of 29ft.was kept on the side of newly under construction block as against of 8ft kept in original approved plan. Even on front side of the block, 20 ft & 6 inches open space has been kept as per the original plan. Further contention of the respondent is that the additional flats are constructed under Self Finance Scheme and the construction work has already been undertaken and culminated up to plinth level. That the proposed additional flats are to be constructed as part of original scheme and in view of the brochure and the agreement entered into with the petitioner at the time of making the allotment of the flats housing the existing building in accepting its terms and conditions. Grievance of the petitioner is stated to be neither bona fide nor genuine. Further stand of the respondent is that the rights of allot-tees over the appurtenant land is only up to the path-way which are meant for common approach to the flats constructed, and under construction and are within the over-all plan. That the scheme for construction of three blocks was indicated in the brochure itself. It is also stated that the approved plan clearly mentions the parking and sewerage space are same and are kept intact. The full development of infrastructure shall be taken only after the completion of the scheme as development costs are to be shared by all the occupants of blocks constructed/under construction. That the modification in the existing plan has already been made and reflected in the revised plan by leaving more space (gap) between the block of the petitioner and the block under construction. That the construction of additional block has been started as per the scheme reflected in the plan approved by the Board of Directors in the year 1995. 4. The respondents further stated that approach to the existing flats is always common up to the block. The petitioner has approach to his flat from two sides. That the construction of additional block has been started as per the scheme reflected in the plan approved by the Board of Directors in the year 1995. 4. The respondents further stated that approach to the existing flats is always common up to the block. The petitioner has approach to his flat from two sides. The construction of another block has been made well as per the scheme envisaged as per brochure about which the petitioner had full knowledge at the time of making an application for the allotment of flat on lease hold basis in the existing block. The petitioner was well aware about the project and the scheme at the relevant time and by constructing additional flats neither the open space nor air and sun light of the petitioner, left for decent and comfortable living, have been obstructed. The respondents further denied to have taken any fresh decision as vouched by the petitioner and in fact three blocks are to be constructed as per the scheme and brochure itself in the surrounding premises of the area where the flat of the petitioner is located in the adjacent building. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties, and also perused the record meticulously. 6. On going through the salient features of the scheme, (annexure `A annexed with the writ petition), it is no where found that the Housing Board had ever indicated that there will be one block only. It only mentions that the sites located at Ambedkar chowk Gandinagar and Hospital road at Gandinagar are idle sites, and the Housing Board proposes construction of flats on Self Finance Basis and offer for sale with provision for parking space and internal path ways. This clearly dispels the contention of the petitioner that at that point of time the Housing Board did not inform the buyers of the flats either verbally or in writing, that some additional flats were to be constructed in the premises for which the Housing Board has already got booking about six flats. This clearly dispels the contention of the petitioner that at that point of time the Housing Board did not inform the buyers of the flats either verbally or in writing, that some additional flats were to be constructed in the premises for which the Housing Board has already got booking about six flats. Further contention of the petitioner is that his flat is located in the center of the premises and admits of no space for construction of any other adjoining residential block, without affecting the living conditions of the occupants and causing multiple problems This plea has been strongly contested by the respondents and it is submitted that the block in which the petitioner has been allotted flat is on the corner of the premises towards the site of Gurdawara. According to the respondents, the entire area of the premises is 15000 Sft out of which the existing block has been constructed within an area of 1300 Sft. In support of this contention the respondents have also placed on record sketch map of the existing block along with the proposed plans. 7. It is indisputably gatherable from the record that the petitioner before making an application for allotment of flat examined the site as well as terms and conditions of the brochure, besides architectural design of the scheme. Construction of additional block is a part of the scheme and this public project is based on self finance scheme. 8. Mr. R.P. Sharma Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the owners of the ground floor have paid two lacs more for extra facilities. Provision of pathways, one of the facilities was among them. Fresh space has been provided as path- ways to the flat of the petitioner with its dimensions indicated in the Sketch map R-2 on file, besides, a common entrance to the existing block, with its dimensions, delineated therein. There is a central park to be provided as green belt which is evident from the communication No. 836-37 dated 14-05-2001. This communication issued by respondents further indicates that the path ways could not be developed at this stage as for further construction space is required to store the material and machinery. This clearly and sufficiently indicates that the construction of additional flats is a part of its approved plan/scheme. This communication issued by respondents further indicates that the path ways could not be developed at this stage as for further construction space is required to store the material and machinery. This clearly and sufficiently indicates that the construction of additional flats is a part of its approved plan/scheme. However, the development of the path ways and the green belt appears to have been temporarily deferred till construction of additional block. It is no where mentioned either in the brochure or in the scheme that the open space with the existing block shall not be utilized for construction of flats of additional block in the premises. The allottees of the existing flats, therefore cannot claim to have been vested with the right to resist or obstruct the construction of the additional flats in the open area available in the premises of the respondents when the facilities indicated in the brochure and the scheme are provided, and undertaken to be developed after the construction of the additional block. Separate entrance has been provided to the existing block with sufficient space available for path ways, though, to be developed after the construction of the additional flats. Manifestly, this does not provide a justifiable cause to the petitioner to invoke the writ jurisdiction in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 9. The petitioner has not carved out any justifiable cause to maintain this writ petition. The petition is without any merit and is, hereby, dismissed at the preliminary stage of admission.