JUDGMENT 1. - We have learned counsel for the parties and perused the order of the learned Single Judge dated 4.8.2005, dismissing the writ petition. 2. The appellant-Sadulshahar Shiksha Vikas Samiti is a registered society claims to actively functioning for the promotion and development of women education in Sadulshahar in a rented premises. The say of the appellant is that the Mandi Development Committee, Hanumangarh made a recommendation vide letter dated 7.1.2000 addressed to the Deputy Town Planner, Command Area Development, I.G.N.P. Krishi Bhawan, Sagar Road, Bikaner for reservation of land measuring 22.90 bighas for Mahila Mahavidhyalya at Sadulshahar. However, the recommendation could not get through the land had stood transferred to Municipal Board, Sadulshahar. The Municipal Board has taken a decision to resolve to widen the road, as such, the subject land cannot be allotted to the appellant. 3. Considering the entire material on record, the learned Single Judge having found no case in favour of the appellant, dismissed the writ petition. 4. It is contended by the learned counsel that the subject land has been earmarked for the garden purpose, as such, it cannot be allotted for any other purpose. He has placed reliance on a decision of Division Bench of this Court in Surendra Singh & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., reported in 1998 WLC (Raj.) UC 318 . He has also placed reliance on various decisions in Bangalore Medical Trust v. B.S. Muddappa & Ors., reported in AIR 1991 SC 1902 ; Virendra Gaur & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors., reported in (1995) 2 SCC 577 and M.I. Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. Sadhey Shyam Sahu & Ors., reported in JT 1999 (5) SC 42 . We have gone through all the judgments. In all those cases, the subject land was reserved for garden in the master plan. 5. In the instant case, nothing is shown that the subject land has been reserved as garden in the master plan. Thus, none of the authorities cited has bearing on the controversy involved in the instant case. The appellant has no vested right to insist the respondent for allotment of the subject land. It has been admitted that the respondent cannot be compelled to allot the subject land to the appellant. However, it is submitted that the Municipal Board cannot be allowed to utilise the land for any purpose than the garden. The appellant has no vested right to insist the respondent for allotment of the subject land. It has been admitted that the respondent cannot be compelled to allot the subject land to the appellant. However, it is submitted that the Municipal Board cannot be allowed to utilise the land for any purpose than the garden. As already stated there is no material on record to show that the land has been reserved for garden in the master plan, as such, direction in that regard can be given. 6. No case is made out for interference by this Court with the order of the learned Single Judge. 7. The special appeal stands dismissed.Special Appeal Dismissed. *******