JUDGMENT : Sanjib Banerjee, J. The petition and the several applications therein have been needlessly pending for a considerable period of time, most of it due to the petitioners' hope that the passage of time might crystalise a right in favour of the petitioners when none may have existed at the time of the institution of the petition. 2. The petition was filed in 2006, challenging the cancellation of an offer by the Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority to allot a plot of land measuring about 0.86 acre in the East Calcutta Area Development Project area. The petitioners intended to set up a commercial project on the land. 3. A crisp list of dates has been made over on behalf of the petitioners that has considerably simplified the adjudication. 4. In May, 2000 KMDA conveyed to the petitioners the offer of bulk land of 0.86 acre at the rate of Rs. 3,53,333/- per cottah. In August, 2000, the petitioners confirmed the acceptance of the relevant land which was identified by number but may not have been identifiable by a sight since the area was not developed at the relevant point of time. 5. On October 30, 2000, the petitioners deposited Rs. 5 lakh as earnest money against the consideration of about Rs. 1.5 crore. This token payment of Rs. 5 lakh is probably the best point that the petitioners cite in asserting a legal right that they perceive has vested in them. 6. The petitioners claim that on October 11, 2001, the respondent authorities informed the petitioners that plot number 1-21A was comprised of two parcels of land measuring 0.64 acre and 0.24 acre. The respondents further intimated the petitioners that there was a high-tension cable running overhead the smaller parcel of land and no civil construction would be permissible on such land. In response to such letter, the petitioners intimated KMDA of their acceptance of the land measuring 0.64 acre but sought time to consider whether the smaller parcel of land would also be obtained by then. 7. By a notice of December 26, 2001, a copy whereof appears as Annexure P-9 to the petition, KMDA called upon the petitioners to inform it within 15 days of the receipt of the letter as to whether the petitioners were agreeable to take up the entirety of the land measuring 0.86 acre at plot number 1-21A at ECADP. 7. By a notice of December 26, 2001, a copy whereof appears as Annexure P-9 to the petition, KMDA called upon the petitioners to inform it within 15 days of the receipt of the letter as to whether the petitioners were agreeable to take up the entirety of the land measuring 0.86 acre at plot number 1-21A at ECADP. Significantly, the letter reduced the price for the plot on which no construction would be possible to Rs. 1.80 lakh per cottah from the Rs. 3.53 lakh per cottah sought for the rest of the land. On the following day, the petitioners informed the KMDA that they were desirous of obtaining the parcel of land which could be constructed upon, but were not interested in the smaller parcel, as no construction would be permissible thereon. 8. It appears that representations were thereafter made on behalf of the petitioners to KMDA and its senior officials and there were regular parleys between the parties. The opinion of the Chief Engineer of KMDA was sought and obtained by its officer on special duty as to whether it would be in KMDA's interest to allot and sell the larger parcel of the land to the petitioners exclusive of the portion where no construction could be undertaken. The Chief Engineer apparently opined that the entirety of the plot had to be allotted and sold, whereupon KMDA informed the petitioners by a writing of July 31, 2002 that it was not possible for KMDA to segregate the 0.64 acre portion of the plot and allot the same to the petitioners without the other portion. The lower price for the smaller plot was repeated in such letter of offer. 9. It must be kept in mind that the original letter requiring the petitioners to confirm their position in acquiring the entirety of the land was issued on December 26, 2001 and the petitioners had been permitted a fortnight's time to respond thereto. Despite the immediate adverse response of the petitioners and KMDA being under no obligation to enter into further correspondence with the petitioners in such regard, the petitioners' representations had been entertained and the opinion of the Chief Engineer of KMDA had also been sought. 10. Despite the immediate adverse response of the petitioners and KMDA being under no obligation to enter into further correspondence with the petitioners in such regard, the petitioners' representations had been entertained and the opinion of the Chief Engineer of KMDA had also been sought. 10. The petitioners did not reply to the letter of July 31, 2002, whereupon by a formal writing of September 09, 2002, the offer of allotment of plot number 1-21A to the petitioners was cancelled by KMDA. 11. The petitioners did not immediately approach the Court. It appears that the petitioners were more convinced of their persuasive abilities with the officials of KMDA than the virtue of promptly asserting their rights before a court of law. From September, 2002 till the formal demand for justice was issued on March 02, 2006, the petitioners met KMDA officials on several occasions, but it does not appear that KMDA climbed down from the stand indicated in the letter of cancellation of the offer issued on September 09, 2002. The petition came to be lodged late in April, 2006. 12. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that in view of the various representations made by the petitioners after receipt of the letter of cancellation of the offer of September 09, 2002 and, in particular, the representation made in Court on behalf of KMDA that an alternative plot would be allotted to the petitioners, it is too late in the day for KMDA now to suggest that there is no plot available nor can the petitioners be entitled to any allotment of land in pursuance of the original offer. 13. It is necessary, in such context to notice the several orders passed in course of the present proceedings. 14. When the petition was received on May 17, 2006, the petitioners sought an adjournment till after the summer vacation on their representation that certain steps were being taken by the respondents which Advocate for the respondents appeared not to be aware of. On September 20, 2006 - by then more than four years after the cancellation of the offer of allotment - when the matter was next taken up, it was submitted on behalf of KMDA that KMDA was "agreeable to offer an alternative plot of land, if available" 15. On September 20, 2006 - by then more than four years after the cancellation of the offer of allotment - when the matter was next taken up, it was submitted on behalf of KMDA that KMDA was "agreeable to offer an alternative plot of land, if available" 15. About two months thereafter the matter was taken up on November 30, 2006 when the submission on behalf of the petitioners "that her client is interested to accept the offer if the purported plot of land as offered is economically viable" was recorded and the matter was adjourned "to enable the petitioners to approach the (KMDA) regarding alternative accommodation, if available". The matter was adjourned when it was next called on January 09, 2007. On December 20, 2007, it was submitted on behalf of KMDA that no appropriate instructions had been received and the petition was adjourned till January 11, 2008. The matter was taken up thereafter on September 10, 2008 when directions were issued for filing affidavits and the writ petition was directed to appear for final disposal in the combined monthly list of December, 2008. The matter was taken up on several fruitless occasions thereafter, including on September 20, 2010, October 04, 2010, November 22, 2010 and January 05, 2011 before an order of some significance came to be made on January 06, 2011. 16. It was submitted on behalf of KMDA on January 06, 2011, that no land was available in the East Calcutta Area Development Project area capable of being allotted to the petitioners. In view of such submission, an affidavit was directed to be filed by a responsible officer of KMDA indicating the status of land within such area. The affidavit was also to include particulars of land which may have been available outside the area. 17. On January 25, 2011, the time to file the relevant affidavit was extended. A further extension was granted on February 14, 2011. On March 07, 2011 it was recorded that the relevant affidavit had been filed. The matter was adjourned on such date and on March 15, March 21, April 18 and August 27, 2012; on most of the occasions at the request of the petitioners. 18. A further extension was granted on February 14, 2011. On March 07, 2011 it was recorded that the relevant affidavit had been filed. The matter was adjourned on such date and on March 15, March 21, April 18 and August 27, 2012; on most of the occasions at the request of the petitioners. 18. Two applications had been filed in the meantime in 2009 and in 2011 and the petition along with the applications were taken up without the matter progressing any further on July 26, 2013, January 08, 2014, May 13, 2014, January 19, 2014, July 03, 2014 and July 24, 2014. 19. As would be evident from the orders passed by Court, each one of which has been noticed and recorded above, there does not appear to be any legal right conferred on the petitioners by virtue of any representation or submission made on behalf of the KMDA at any point of time after the issuance of letter of cancellation of the offer on September 09, 2002. Even though it must be said that a short submission made and recorded in Court may not bind a party without the entire conspectus of the matter being noticed while recording the submission, it would still be evident that the KMDA had not climbed down from its stand of cancellation of the letter of allotment of September, 09, 2002, in course of this petition pending in Court for nearly a decade. 20. Indeed, on most occasions, the petition was adjourned at the behest of the petitioners who may have probably sought to keep the hope alive in anticipation of some fortuitous circumstance suddenly presenting itself. 21. The petitioners have only themselves to blame for not taking up the repeated invitation of KMDA to accept the allotment of the entire plot. Though KMDA was under no obligation to consider the petitioners' counter offer of allotment of 0.64 acre of the plot, the statutory body sought its chief engineer's opinion as to whether such course of action would be in its interest. The letters of December 26, 2001 and July 31, 2002 reveal that KMDA had scaled down the price for the 0.24 acre portion of the land to about half of the price at which it offered the 0.64 acre area of the plot which could be constructed upon. The letters of December 26, 2001 and July 31, 2002 reveal that KMDA had scaled down the price for the 0.24 acre portion of the land to about half of the price at which it offered the 0.64 acre area of the plot which could be constructed upon. Once it was established that the bifurcation of the plot and the sale of the 0.64 acre portion thereof would not be in the best interests of KMDA and the petitioners' repeatedly spurned the offer to obtain the entire plot at a reduced rate for this smaller area which could not be constructed upon, KMDA cannot be faulted for its cancellation of the offer communicated by its letter of September 9, 2002. 22. Land is a scarce commodity which is increasingly depleting as an available resource. It is not as if the petitioners propose to use the land for any altruistic purpose; they intend to rake in crores by putting up a commercial complex on the land they wish to obtain. They only have the token earnest of Rs. 5 lakh tendered in the year 2000 to show in asserting the inchoate right that they canvass. In the decade and a half that has elapsed from the time that the land was offered to the petitioners, this metropolis has burgeoned, particularly to the east and the southeast and there is hardly any open land that the eyes can rest on. The relevant plot has since been allotted by KMDA to some other and the petitioners are aware of such position. An alternative plot may have been directed to be made available by KMDA to the petitioners, but only upon satisfaction that the cancellation of the original allotment was arbitrary or unreasonable or otherwise improper. 23. The petitioners have not been able to establish that KMDA had improperly terminated the offer originally made or that KMDA remains liable to search out and allot an alternative plot to the petitioners. The petitioners hedged their bets and attempted to pinch pennies as would be evident from their letter of December 27, 2001. It would not do for the petitioners to now say that they were subsequently willing to take up the entire land when they had twice rejected such offer in writing and did not respond to the notice of July 31, 2002 issued prior to KMDA's termination of the offer. 24. It would not do for the petitioners to now say that they were subsequently willing to take up the entire land when they had twice rejected such offer in writing and did not respond to the notice of July 31, 2002 issued prior to KMDA's termination of the offer. 24. There is no case of either promissory estoppel or legitimate expectation worth its name that has been made out. 25. The petition has been needlessly dragged on in the hope that one or the other orders would persuade the Court to ultimately not look into the writ petition and make an order on the basis of a stray submission tersely recorded. 26. W.P. No.10418 (W) of 2006 along with the applications therein, including C.A.N. 9195 of 2009 and C.A.N. 292 of 2011, are dismissed with costs assessed at Rs. 1 lakh to be paid by the petitioners to the West Bengal State Legal Services Authority within a fortnight from date. 27. Nothing in this order will prevent the petitioners from instituting appropriate proceedings, other then by way of a further petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, for recovery of the earnest money that had been tendered. 28. Certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be urgently made available to the parties, subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.