JUDGMENT 1. - By this petition for writ, a direction is sought by the petitioner for the respondents to issue allotment letter as well lease-deed pertaining to plot No.7, Gordhan Vilas, Udaipur in his favour. 2. In brief, the facts of the case are that on 8.8.1992 plot No.7 was allotted to the petitioner by the Urban Improvement Trust, Udaipur as per decision of the Land Allotment Committee. Suffice to notice that the allotment of land was made in lieu of removal of encroachment that was made by the petitioner at the land situated near Octroi Barrier, Gordhan Vilas, Udaipur. On being failed to fulfill the conditions referred in the order dated 8.9.1992, the allotment so made was cancelled. However, on 4.6.2004 a decision was again taken by the Land Allotment Committee of the Urban Improvement Trust and it was resolved that fresh allotment be made to the allottees by charging market rate from them. It was also resolved that whatever amount was deposited earlier be confiscated. The petitioner failed to avail this opportunity too as he did not deposit the then existing market rate with the Urban Improvement Trust, Udaipur, which was necessary for allotment of land. 3. A civil suit then was filed by the petitioner claiming mandatory injunction and to issue lease-deed in his favour pertaining to use of plot No.7, said to be allotted to him on 18.8.1992. The suit aforesaid came to be rejected by the District Judge, Udaipur vide judgment and decree dated 16.1.2009, however, the trial court expected from the Urban Improvement Trust to pursue the case of the petitioner with State Government for taking appropriate decision as per the resolution dated 4.6.2004. The observation aforesaid was made in view of the fact that the Urban Improvement Trust, Udaipur in its written statement stated that on being failed to accept the conditions referred in the resolution dated 4.6.2004 by the petitioner, his case was referred to the State Government. The State Government under its order dated 01.3.2011 rejected the petitioner's claim for allotment of land marked as plot No.7, being stale one. In this petition a challenge is given to the order aforesaid. 4. The State Government under its order dated 01.3.2011 rejected the petitioner's claim for allotment of land marked as plot No.7, being stale one. In this petition a challenge is given to the order aforesaid. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the State Government has rejected the petitioner's claim absolutely on non-existent consideration in view of the fact that the State Government was required to consider the conditions referred in the resolution dated 4.6.2004 and further to condone the delay, if any occurred in adhering the conditions so imposed. It is further submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to abide by the conditions referred to in the resolution dated 4.6.2004 even now. 5. I do not find any merit in the argument advanced. 6. The respondent-Urban Improvement Trust, Udaipur proposed for allotment of a plot to the petitioner in lieu of encroachment made by him on a public land. A letter of allotment was issued on quite a reasonable rate, but the petitioner failed to deposit the entire amount within the period prescribed. Subsequent thereto, a resolution was undertaken to allot piece of land on deposition of then existing market rate and by confiscating the amount earlier deposited in pursuant to order dated 18.1.1992. The petitioner failed to avail the second opportunity also. As a consequent to it, the allotment made under the order dated 18.1.1992 stood cancelled. The Civil Court, therefore, rejected the suit preferred by the petitioner. The Urban Improvement Trust, Udaipur referred the matter to the State Government for seeking guidelines for allotment of the land even on non-compliance of the resolution dated 4.6.2004. The State Government reached at the conclusion that the entire dispute is quite a stale one and, therefore, no allotment of land now is required to be made. 7. It is not in dispute that the encroachment of the petitioner on public land was removed in the year 1992, then in the month of September, 1992 in lieu of the encroachment removed a piece of land was allotted to him but the petitioner failed to deposit the amount required for such allotment. A second opportunity was given to him in 1996 but that too was not availed by him. The State Government, therefore, rightly reached at the conclusion that a stale matter cannot be reopened. A second opportunity was given to him in 1996 but that too was not availed by him. The State Government, therefore, rightly reached at the conclusion that a stale matter cannot be reopened. The petitioner as a matter of fact was not having any right for claiming allotment. Whatever claim was made by him is on the basis of equity, which as a matter of fact by flux of time does not lie in his favour. 8. The petition for writ is, therefore, dismissed. However, if the petitioner submits a representation to the Urban Improvement Trust, Udaipur for refund of the amount deposited by him in pursuant to the allotment letter dated 18.8.1992, that shall be considered sympathetically.Petition Dismissed. *******