Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.— The petitioners, who are the proprietors of village Nakhdola, Tehsil and District Gurgaon, have filed this petition as a `Public Interest Litigation' for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to extend Lal Dora of the Abadi of their village in terms of Section 22(aa) of the Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Restriction of Unregulated Development (Haryana Amendment) Act, 2003 [for short “the Act”]. 2. Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that consolidation proceedings were culminated in their village in the year 1954 and since then Lal Dora has not been extended although the population has increased manifolds. A site plan has been produced on record as Annexure P-2 in which Abadi is shown in yellow colour and land sought to be extended as Abadi beyond the Lal Dora in orange colour. 3. It is submitted that the case is covered by Section 22(aa) of the Act which provides for extension of Abadi to the extent of 60% beyond the Lal Dora. 4. During the course of hearing, counsel for the petitioners has admitted that the land shown in orange colour in the site plan (Annexure P-2) is already under acquisition since notifications under Sections 4 & 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 have already been issued and are challenged before this Court. It is also admitted that the land in question has already come within the limits of Municipal Corporation, Gurgaon. 5. We have heard counsel for the petitioners and perused the record. 6. First of all, the writ petition is not maintainable in its present form as it serves the personal interest of the petitioners whose land has already been acquired situated in the area which is sought to be extended as Lal Dora of the village. Secondly, Section 22(aa) of the Act is not applicable because it is an exception to the application of the Act. The said provision reads as under: “Exemption – Nothing in this Act apply to - (a) the area comprised in the Abadi Deh of any Village; (aa) the area adjacent to the Abadi deh of any Village which the Government identifies for Village expansion through a notification publichsed in the Official Gazette, specifically to this effect subject to the condition that this area shall not exceed sixty percent of the existing village Abadi Deh.” 7. There is no mandate of law in Section 22(aa) of the Act of expansion of village Abadi to the extent of 60% of the existing Abadi Deh. It is well settled law that in a case of a writ of mandamus, the petitioner has to prove his legal right and the corresponding legal duty of the respondent, but unfortunately, the petitioners in this writ petition have failed to prove the corresponding legal duty of the respondents by any provision of law for the extension of Abadi Deh. Section 22(aa) only provides that the provisions of the Act would not apply to any area which is adjacent to the Abadi Deh of the village which the Government identifies for expansion through a notification which shall not be more than 60% of the existing Abadi Deh. It is not the scope of this provision which could be used for extending the Abadi Deh muchless the Lal Dora to the extent of 60%, rather it only provides for its identification which is alleged to have been done in the case of village Chakkarpur by way of notification dated 04.11.2008 (Annexure P-11). In such a situation, the petitioners cannot cry discrimination as well. Moreover, the land of the petitioners, which has been shown in orange colour in the site plan Annexure P-2, has already been acquired and the said acquisition proceedings are under challenge before this Court. The petitioners have failed to show that Abadi Deh cannot be acquired if it is required for any sovereign function of the State. Lastly, as it has been admitted by counsel for the petitioners that the land in question has come within the limits of Municipal Corporation, Gurgaon, and has apparently lost its character of village and hence, there is no question of extension of Lal Dora. 8. Looking from any angle, there is no merit in the present writ petition and hence, the same is hereby dismissed in limine.