Judgment K.S. Rathore, J.-This writ petition is directed against the notice dated 212.1996 by which the Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Neem Ka Thana, informed the petitioner to remove the encroachment from the public way and the money deposited by the petitioner was refunded with interest. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that after allotment of the Chabutara (dais) measuring 10x34 ft. and after acceptance of the money in lieu of allotment, the Municipal Board is estopped to recall the order and cancel the allotment but the Executive Officer while cancelling the allotment and refunding the amount categorically stated in its order that the allotment which was made was contrary to the provisions of the Rajasthan Disposal of Urban Land Rules of 1974 (for short, the Rules of 1974 and beyond power of the Administrator and the allotment made in favour of the petitioner was also not approved by the Collector as clearly stipulates under Rule 30 of the Rules of 1974 that the land worth more than Rs. 10,000/-requires the approval from the Deputy Director, Local Bodies which is also not accorded and the allotment which was made in favour of the petitioner also contrary to the decision taken by this Court on 112.1994. This Court directed the Municipal Board not to sale/lease out the land situated at the road boundary and it was further directed to remove such encroachment and cancel the allotment so made in favour of the persons on the road boundary. 3. On behalf of the respondent it is submitted that this petition is directed against the notice dated 212.1996 and it is also informed that the amount deposited by the petitioner was already refunded and same was accepted by the petitioner and the petitioner after accepting the refund amount estopped to challenge the notice dated 21.01.1996. 4. Learned Counsel for the respondent also submitted that the encroachment and construction of platform/Chabutra had already been removed. 5. 4. Learned Counsel for the respondent also submitted that the encroachment and construction of platform/Chabutra had already been removed. 5. Having considered the rival submissions of the respective parties and upon careful perusal of the notice dated 212.1996, it is not disputed that the land which was allotted to the petitioner is on the road boundary and the petitioner constructed a Chabutara over it and as the allotment made in favour of the petitioner was found contrary to the provisions of law and as such the amount so deposited by the petitioner was refunded with interest to the petitioner and same has been accepted, therefore, by way of acceptance, the petitioner is estopped to challenge the order passed by the Municipal Board and it is also not disputed by the petitioner that the construction made had already been removed. 6. Consequently, in view of the observations made here in above, this writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed being devoid of merit with no orders as to cost.