JUDGMENT : 1. This petition is directed against order dated 27.10.16 passed by the District Collector, Sri Ganganagar, whereby while deciding the representation made by the petitioner pursuant to directions issued by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 29.8.16, the order passed has been forwarded to the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Jaipur and the Additional Co-operative Societies, Bikaner for appropriate action in accordance with law. 2. The relevant facts are that the respondent no.5 herein, Shri Yogesh Kumar Jindal preferred a writ petition (PIL) before this Court, questioning the action of the petitioner, a cooperative society registered under the Cooperative Societies Act, 2003, in making allotment of the plots in contravention of condition no.6 of allotment letter dated 13.8.81 issued by the District Collector, Sri Ganganagar. The petition was disposed of by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 29.8.16 in the following terms : “Having considered the facts of the case, we deem it appropriate to dispose of this petition for writ by directing the Collector, Sriganganagar to treat memo of this petition as representation submitted to him and to look into the allegation leveled therein. The Collector, Sriganganagar shall decide the entire dispute within a period of one month from today and if the petitioner demands an opportunity of personal hearing, the same be also given. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of.” 3. Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court as aforesaid, the District Collector, treating the petition preferred by the respondent no.5-Yogesh Kumar as representation, issue notice to the petitioner herein. After taking into consideration the reply to the representation and the documents filed by the petitioner, the District Collector arrived at the finding that the petitioner-society has allotted the land reserved for road, park and other public purposes in defiance of the lease deed executed in its favour by the District Collector and thus, the allotments made of the land forming part of the land reserved for road, park etc. are illegal. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the order impugned passed by the District Collector ignoring the resolution adopted by the Board of Directors of the petitioner society in its meeting held on 19.10.12 is ex facie erroneous. are illegal. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the order impugned passed by the District Collector ignoring the resolution adopted by the Board of Directors of the petitioner society in its meeting held on 19.10.12 is ex facie erroneous. That apart, learned counsel submitted that vide resolution dated 26.3.13 adopted by the general body of the petitioner society in its meeting held on 26.3.13, it was decided that the road which is shown as 100 feet wide in the map shall be reduced to 45 feet and the land available after reducing the width of the road shall be allotted by preparing a fresh map. Learned counsel submitted that vide resolution dated 24.4.15 adopted by the general body of the petitioner society, it was decided that the land lying vacant should be allotted to the members for constructing their offices and for other purposes. Learned counsel submitted that the Additional Registrar, Cooperatives, has already decided that the decision taken by the society for reducing the width of the road is not against the bye-laws and thus, the order passed by the District Collector is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 5. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. 6. Indisputably, the District Collector has decided the dispute raised pursuant to the directions issued by this Court. It is not disputed before this Court that the petitioner society had surrendered its land and accordingly, the lease deed was issued in favour of the petitioner by the District Collector, Sriganganagar. It is also not disputed that allotments have been made by the society in violation of the plan already approved by the town planner. Obviously, the sub-division of the plots as per the lay out plan approved by the Town Planner in accordance with the norms laid down could not have been altered by the petitioner society on its own. It is pertinent to note that vide resolution no.6 adopted by the Board of Directors of the petitioner society the decision was taken to allot the additional land available and not to allot the land forming part of the road, park etc. as per the approved plan. It is well settled law the land earmarked in the plan as open spaces, road, park etc. as per the approved plan. It is well settled law the land earmarked in the plan as open spaces, road, park etc. cannot be put to any other use and thus, the action of the petitioner society in allotting the land forming part of road and park by division thereof in plots in violation of approved plan has rightly been held illegal by the District Collector. Moreover, the land allotted for industrial purposes could not have been divested by the society for other use. Thus, viewed from any angle, the order passed by the District Collector deciding the dispute in terms of directions issued by a Bench of this Court does not suffer from any infirmity, illegality or jurisdictional error. 7. No case for interference by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is made out. 8. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed in limine.