JUDGEMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the counsel for Patna Regional Development Authority, now merged with Patna Municipal Corporation. 2. From the order under appeal it is clear that this case had a chequered history. From the order of the writ court, dated 6.9.1999 which is Annexure-14 to the writ petition, it transpires that one Most. Jira Devi had claimed a right to be allotted a land/flat in Rajendra Nagar locality on the ground that her land had been acquired for development of Rajendra Nagar Housing Scheme. The said housing scheme was initiated when Patna Improvement Trust was in existence and the land for that scheme was acquired around the year 1960. The petitioner claims that his mother Most. Basumati Devi had applied for the first time on 17.12.1969 to the Patna Improvement Trust for allotment of a housing plot as a displaced person whose land had been acquired for the housing scheme. Subsequently, on death of Most. Basumati Devi one Most. Jira Devi claimed to be daughter and only legal heir entitled for preferential allotment of land as an heir of Most. Basumati Devi. At her instance the order, dated 6.9.1999 contained in Annexure-14 to the writ petition was passed. That order shows that as per direction of the writ court, a flat in Rajendra Nagar locality was offered to the writ petitioner and that offer was accepted in principle. However, while disposing of the writ petition, the writ court observed that though offer of the flat is accepted by the petitioner, liberty is given to file a representation without prejudice for allotment of plot at Rajendra Nagar. Such representation if made before the authorities of the Patna Regional Development Authority, which was the successor body in place of the Patna Improvement Trust, was to be considered after examining whether there is any vacant plot available for allotment. If vacant plot was located, then such claim was to be considered in accordance with law and on the basis of priority claim. 3. The representation of the petitioner who had already been substituted in C.W.J.C. No. 2262 of 1992 in place of Most. Jira Devi was considered by the Patna Regional Development Authority and rejected by order, dated 6.5.2003 which is Annexure-18 to the wit petition. 3. The representation of the petitioner who had already been substituted in C.W.J.C. No. 2262 of 1992 in place of Most. Jira Devi was considered by the Patna Regional Development Authority and rejected by order, dated 6.5.2003 which is Annexure-18 to the wit petition. That order expressed some reservations regarding the claim of the petitioner that he is son of Basumati Devi and brother of Jira Devi and it further noted that a Power of Attorney had been created by Jira Devi in favour of the petitioner but that will have no effect after the death of Jira Devi. 4. The petitioner filed a contempt petition being M.J.C. No. 2196 of 2000 and in that proceeding he also challenged on merits the order, dated 6.5.2003 of the Patna Regional Development Authority. At the instance of the court. Patna Regional Development Authority passed another order on the petitioners representation on 1.11.2003 which is Annexure-19 to the writ petition. The validity of those orders of Patna Regional Development Authority contained in Annexures-18 and 19 were gone into on merits in the contempt proceeding only at the instance of the petitioner. This is evident from the final order passed in the contempt case, dated 12.11.2003, Annexure-20 to the writ petition. That order found that the petitioner as an applicant for land had to satisfy the requirement of Rule 17 of the Disposal of Land Rules, 1978. The court also found that the petitioner failed to satisfy the requirement of that rule and hence the Patna Regional Development Authority was not at fault in refusing to allot a plot of land to the petitioner. 5. The aforesaid judgment and order. dated 12.11.2003 was challenged through L.P.A. No. 1199 of 2003 which was dismissed on 30.7.2004 with an observation that there was no merit in the appeal but the appellant will be at liberty to challenge the order passed on representation in accordance with law. In view of such observation, against the orders contained in Annexures-18 and 19 to the writ petition, the appellant preferred the connected writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 134 of 2004 which has been dismissed by learned writ court through the judgment and order under appeal. 6. In view of such observation, against the orders contained in Annexures-18 and 19 to the writ petition, the appellant preferred the connected writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 134 of 2004 which has been dismissed by learned writ court through the judgment and order under appeal. 6. The writ court has also followed the views of learned Single Judge who dismissed the contempt proceeding and decided on merits that the action of the Patna Regional Development Authority was justified in view of Rule 17 of the Disposal of Land Rules. 1978. 7. No doubt the writ petition has been preferred in view of the observations by the L.P.A. Bench but on merits the L.P.A. Bench found no lacunae in the judgment and order, dated 12.11.2003 passed in the contempt proceeding. As noticed earlier that judgment and order dealt with the merits of the case only at the instance of the petitioner. This fact is clearly mentioned in paragraph 15 of that judgment that ordinarily the petitioner would have been asked to challenge the order of the Patna Regional Development Authority through a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India but merits of the matter were gone into on account of counsel for the petitioner who invited the court to decide the matter on merits. As noticed earlier while dismissing L.P.A. No. 1199 of 2003 the Division Bench did not find any merit in the appeal and as a consequence the order of learned Single Judge, dated 12.11.2003 stood confirmed. 8. in such a situation the learned Single Judge while passing the order under appeal has taken a correct view that the petitioner cannot get any relief in view of Rule 17 of the Disposal of Land Rules, 1978. No doubt, on behalf of the petitioner, it has been submitted that since the lands were acquired in 1960 and application for allotment of land was made by Basumati Devi in 1969. the old rules of 1957 should have been applied. We find two difficulties in accepting aforesaid contention. Firstly we notice that such contention was not raised when the matter was argued on merits in the contempt proceeding. the old rules of 1957 should have been applied. We find two difficulties in accepting aforesaid contention. Firstly we notice that such contention was not raised when the matter was argued on merits in the contempt proceeding. Secondly we find that there was no order in favour of Basumati Devi or Jira Devi by the Patna Improvement Trust or the Patna Regional Development Authority prior to 1978 Rules and hence nothing could survive in the light of the saving clause in the new Rules. The petitioner has not stepped into the shoes of an allottee but has stepped into the shoes. at best of an applicant and as per the observation made by this court earlier noticed above, his claim was directed to be considered as per law when representations were filed and not as per law existing earlier. 9. In view of the aforesaid facts and discussions, we find no good ground to interfere with the order of the writ court. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.