ORDER : Sangeet Lodha, J. This petition is directed against notice dated 7.10.11 issued by the Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Suratgarh, directing the petitioner to remove the encroachment made over the Government land measuring 6000 sq. ft. 2. The relevant facts are that one Shri Pyarelal was allotted a commercial plot measuring 140 x 120 sq. ft. being plot no.4 situated in Ward No. 6/5 New Mandi, Bikaner Road, Suratgarh, pursuant to open auction conducted by the Mandi Development Committee, Surtgarh. A lease deed was executed by the Mandi Development Committee in favour of Pyarelal on 19.3.90. Shri Pyarelal sold the plot in question in favour of the petitioner vide registered sale deed dated 26.3.91. According to the petitioner, at the time of construction of the boundary wall, it was revealed that as a matter of fact, the actual measurement of the plot at the site is 152 x 150 sq.ft. It is averred that other plots marked as reserved for 'Public and Semi Public Purpose' in the Scheme, 7 in number, were allotted to other persons, measured 100 x 150 sq. ft. each and thus, according to the petitioner, the building line from western to eastern side at the petitioner's plot measures 150 ft. in length yet, the petitioner's predecessor in title was mistakenly allotted the plot measuring 140 x 120 sq. ft. It is submitted that the petitioner is in possession of the plot measuring 152 x 150 sq. ft. for more than 21 years without any disturbance and he has established a Weighing Machine on the said plot, which is fully functional as on the date. 3. Since the petitioner's predecessor in title was allotted the land with the measurement 140' x 120' i.e. 16800 sq. ft. and the petitioner had encroached upon the Government land measuring 6000 sq. ft., the Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Suratgarh directed the petitioner to remove the encroachment over the Government land within a period of 48 years. Hence, this petition. 4. Precisely, the case of the petitioner is that he is ready to hand over the possession of the land measuring 12 x 150 sq. ft. in his possession but as far as the remaining 30 x 140 sq.ft. Hence, this petition. 4. Precisely, the case of the petitioner is that he is ready to hand over the possession of the land measuring 12 x 150 sq. ft. in his possession but as far as the remaining 30 x 140 sq.ft. land situated on the eastern side of the plot of the petitioner which was wrongly left out at the time of allotment of the plot in favour of the petitioner's predecessor in title is concerned, it falls in the building line as per the map of the Scheme and therefore, the said piece of land cannot be allotted to any other person and the petitioner is entitled for allotment/regularisation of possession over the land, on payment of the price. 5. A reply to the writ petition has been filed on behalf of the respondent Municipal Board taking the stand that the petitioner has removed the encroachment from the plot no.3 measuring 12 x 150 sq.ft. but he is still continuing with the encroachment over the remaining land measuring 140 x 30 sq. ft. It is submitted that the value of the land measuring 140 x 30 sq. ft. comes to crores of rupees and the Municipal Board after constructing 14 shops measuring 10 x 30 sq. ft. each, intends to put the same to open auction. It is submitted that the petitioner's land is situated at 100 ft. wide road, whereas, the road in front of the land measuring 140 x 30 sq. ft. encroached upon by the petitioner is situated at 60 ft. wide and thus, the question with regard to the building line raised by the petitioner is totally unfounded and not sustainable. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents contended that admittedly, the petitioner is claiming right over the land in question on the strength of the sale deed executed in his favour by Pyarelal, who was allotted the land ad measuring 140 x 120 sq. ft. and therefore, the petitioner, who has encroached upon the Government land cannot claim regularisation of the possession as a matter of right. Learned counsel submitted that admittedly, the disputed land stands vested in the Municipal Board, Suratgarh and the disposal of the urban land in the municipal area is governed by the Rajasthan Municipalities (Disposal of Urban Land) Rules, 1974 (for short "the Rules"), which does not make any provision for regularisation of unauthorised possession. Learned counsel submitted that admittedly, the disputed land stands vested in the Municipal Board, Suratgarh and the disposal of the urban land in the municipal area is governed by the Rajasthan Municipalities (Disposal of Urban Land) Rules, 1974 (for short "the Rules"), which does not make any provision for regularisation of unauthorised possession. Learned counsel urged that as per the provisions of Rule 23 of the Rules, only small strips which are not fit to be disposed of as plots, may be sold to the owners of the adjoining plots at the rate, double the reserved price and the area of the strip land in no case exceed 100 sq. yards. Learned counsel submitted that the land in unauthorised occupation of the petitioner is 4800 sq. ft. which is intended to be used by the Municipal Board for construction of the shop and therefore, the question of regularisation of the petitioner's possession over the disputed land does not arise. 7. I have perused the record and considered the submissions made by the counsel appearing for the respondents. 8. Indisputably, the petitioner's predecessor in title was allotted the land measuring 140 x 120 sq. ft. and the same was purchased by the petitioner by way of registered sale deed dated 26.3.91. In this view of the matter, the petitioner cannot claim any right whatsoever over the land in excess of the area covered by the allotment made by the Mandi Development Committee in favour of the original allottee. The petitioner cannot claim regularisation of his possession as a matter of right. The petitioner has not been able to point out as to under which provision of the law, he is entitled for regularisation of his illegal possession over the land measuring 4800 sq.ft. Undoubtedly, such a huge land cannot be considered to be strip land so as to make the petitioner the owner of the adjoining land to claim the allotment in terms of Rule 23 of the Rules, more so, when the allotment of the land exceeding the area 100 sq. yards is specifically prohibited under the Rules. That apart, considering the location of the land on 60 ft. wide road, in no manner, it could be considered to be the land which cannot be put to other appropriate use. yards is specifically prohibited under the Rules. That apart, considering the location of the land on 60 ft. wide road, in no manner, it could be considered to be the land which cannot be put to other appropriate use. In any case, this court in exercise of its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot issue directions to the respondent Municipal Board to consider the claim of the petitioner for regularisation of his unauthorised possession over the Government land dehors the Rules. 9. In the result, the petition fails, it is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Writ petition dismissed.