JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The writ petitioner had previously instituted CWP No. 100 of 2005 before this Court, petition whereof was disposed off on 21.06.2005 with the hereinafter extracted directions rendered thereon, by the Principal Division Bench of this Court:- “After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we dispose of this petition by directing respondent No.1 to ensure that if either the petitioners or respondent No.2 has encroached upon any part of any public property or any part of public land in any manner, such encroachments shall be removed and such public property or such public land shall be totally cleared of such encroachment within four weeks from today. We also direct respondent No.1 to ensure that if it contemplates considering any application of respondent No.2 for allotment of any land, no such allotment in favour of respondent No.2 shall be made by respondent No.1 if any such allotment adversely affects public interest or the right of any member of the public for user of any such land. If any such proposed allotment in any manner has the potential of adversely affecting the right of petitioner No.1 no such allotment in favour of respondent No.2 shall be made by respondent No.1, unless petitioner No.1 is afforded an opportunity of hearing. The allotment in favour of respondent No.2, if proposed to be made despite the aforesaid observations, shall be made only by passing reasoned and speaking order.” 2. In pursuance thereto, the competent authority upon hearing all objections instituted therebefore, by the petitioner herein, also after its giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, proceeded to order for allotment of additional land measuring 38.85 sq. meters vis-a-vis respondent No.3 herein. The relevant objections reared before the competent authority, by the writ petitioner, stood anvilled upon the (a) factum of plot bearing No. 7A, Lane-3, Sector -1, New Shimla holding access thereto also from Lane-2. He hence contended qua his holding access to the aforesaid plot from lane-2 and from lane-3. meters vis-a-vis respondent No.3 herein. The relevant objections reared before the competent authority, by the writ petitioner, stood anvilled upon the (a) factum of plot bearing No. 7A, Lane-3, Sector -1, New Shimla holding access thereto also from Lane-2. He hence contended qua his holding access to the aforesaid plot from lane-2 and from lane-3. (b) The factum of the apposite allotment occurring at the dead end of lane No.2, stood assayed to be assailed by the writ petitioner, through, correspondences made by him with the authorities concerned, wherein he sought its being metalled, whereas his apposite efforts bearing no fruition; (c) the sequel of the authorities concerned, not, metalling the dead end of lane-2, resulting in infraction being begotten of the relevant salient features of the apposite scheme comprised in sub-paragraph No.vi, with a display therein of “all buildings, flats and independent houses in the complex will be accessible by double lane motorable road”. (d) The aforesaid unmetalled dead end of lane-2 comprising a public utility hence being unallotable vis-avis any resident/allottee in the area concerned. The authority concerned under Annexure P-32, by, assigning reasons, dismissed the aforesaid objections, in sequel, whereto, it , in consonance with the afore extracted directions, proceeded to make allotment of the contentious parcel of land vis-a-vis respondent No.3. The reasons assigned by the competent authority, for, making the allotment of the contentious parcel of land, is/are, comprised in the factum of the allottee proposing to develop it as a green land, whereas, no request emanating from him for raising any construction thereon, except, erection of boundary wall also is embedded in misutilization, of the dead end of lane-3 by the residents of the area, comprised in theirs throwing garbage thereon, whereupon, unhygienic conditions arising visa- vis respondent No.3, standing hence obviated. Though, New Shimla Residents Welfare Society under a communication borne at page 696, of, the writ petition, addressed a communication to the competent authority, ventilating therein, its, objections qua the allotment of the contentious parcel of land vis-a-vis respondent No.3, objections whereof stood anvilled upon its, as per the master plan being reserved for public utilities, yet no cogent material in substantiation thereto stood adduced before the competent authority, which pronounced Annexure P-32. Consequently, the objections, if any, raised by New Shimla Residents Society's vis-a-vis the allotment of the contentious parcel of land, cannot, be construed to be holding any sustenance rather it is to be concluded that the allotment of the contentious parcel of land vis-a-vis respondent No.3, is hence, not, with respect to any tracts of land preserved for user by the public at large. Consequently, the subsisting dominant lis appertaining to the allotment of the contentious parcel of land, is inter se the petitioner and respondent No.3. 4. Before proceeding to dwell upon the respective contentions reared by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as also by the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3, it is imperative to allude, to the report of the Local Commissioner concerned, who, stood appointed by this Court on 18.04.2006. The report of the local commissioner occur at page 147 of the paper book. The relevant portion of the report of the local commissioner unfolds, the factum of (a) Plot No. D-16 allotted vis-a-vis respondent No.3 standing located in lane-2, approach road whereof is about 10 meters wide; (b) plot No.D-16 belonging to respondent No.3 occurring at the dead end of lane-2, on the hill side; (c) Plot No. A-7 allotted to the writ petitioner occurring at the end of lane- 3 also its being the last plot in lane-3; (d) access to plot No. 7-A being from lane-3, whereas, the petitioner with user of bridge/stairs resting on lane-2 hence also using lane-2, as a back entry to his house and for his entering onto his second floor. The report of the Local Commissioner, adds vigour to the pronouncement made by the competent authority concerned, especially when no objections in respect to the aforesaid displays occurring therein, stand projected by the writ petitioner. 5. With conclusivity being imputed to the report of the Local Commissioner and to the reasons in commensuration thereof assigned by the competent authority, in the latter making the apposite allotment, thereafter the emanations borne in (a) Annexure P-2/B, comprising the final plan prepared by respondent No.1, wherein a display occurs in respect of the approach, to the plot of the petitioner being singularly from lane-3. (b) Annexure P-3 comprising the registered lease deed executed by the competent authority vis-a-vis the writ petitioner in respect of plot No.7-A, standing appended, with a layout plan, with a display therein of plot No.7-A occurring in lane-3, Sector-1, “also”, beget a sequel of the petitioner hence contractually acquiescing to the factum of his plot occurring in lane-3, wherefrom, it is apt to conclude of his, as, concurrently borne in the report of the local commissioner besides in the order recorded by the competent authority, hence holding an entitlement to make access onto his plot bearing plot No.7A, singularly from lane-3. The registered lease deed borne in Annexure P-3, embodies the contractual terms and conditions in respect of the aforesaid plot, thereupon, all the terms and conditions borne therein acquire conclusivity, importantly with no displays occurring therein, of the petitioner besides holding access to plot No. 7A from lane-3, his being also entitled to access his plot from lane-2. Corollary whereof, is that the petitioner is estopped, to beyond the covenanted disclosures occurring in Annexure P-3 besides beyond the ones occurring in the layout plan appended therewith, claim access to his plot No.7A from lane-2. Also he could oust the play of the aforesaid recitals borne in Annexure P-3 besides in the layout plan appended therewith, for leveraging a tenable claim, for, hence his legitimately competing with respondent No.3 vis-a-vis allotment, of, the contentious parcel of land, only, when in compatibility with respondent No.3, he had claimed of his also requiring it for developing it, as a green area, without, his making any claims for raising construction thereon, except, for constructing a retaining wall thereon, yet claims aforesaid in respect of allotment vis-a-vis him of the contentious tract of the land, remain unespoused by the writ petitioner, thereupon, he cannot strip the apposite allotment of its validity. 6. The writ petitioner has also, on anvil, of the salient features of the apposite scheme, as exist in sub paragraph No. iv thereof, claimed that the Housing Board was enjoined to through double motorable roads hence provide dual/two approaches to his plot. 6. The writ petitioner has also, on anvil, of the salient features of the apposite scheme, as exist in sub paragraph No. iv thereof, claimed that the Housing Board was enjoined to through double motorable roads hence provide dual/two approaches to his plot. The aforesaid contention is manifestly erroneous, especially when the relevant deed of conveyance embodying the contractual binding obligations created therein vis-a-vis the Housing Board and the writ petitioner, does not, apparently sustain the aforesaid contention, rather contrarily enunciations occur therein in respect of the writ petitioner holding an access to his plot singularly from lane-3. Moreover, the factum of the Housing Board being enjoined, to, provide approaches to the plot of the petitioner, through, double motorable roads, is bereft of any veracity, in the face of the petitioner in his previous writ petition bearing No. CWP No. 100 of 2005, making, in consonance with the relevant mandate occurring in the salient features of the scheme borne in the brochure, hence, correct displays thereof qua all the buildings, flats, plots and independent houses existing in the complex, being accessible by double lane motorable road, implication whereof is of the Housing Board being contractually bound to hence, through, singular/single motorable road holding two lanes provide access to the relevant buildings, plots and flats, “than”, as erroneously contended by the petitioner, of, the Housing Board being obliged to provide double motorable roads, with an inherent fallacious implication of the petitioner, being entitled to access his plot both from lane-2 and from lane-3, validations whereof would also sequel this Court beyond the terms and conditions of the relevant lease deed, pronouncing qua the petitioner, holding a right to access his plot both from lane-2 and from lane-3. It appears that the aforesaid averment ensues from the petitioner withholding the first three pages of the scheme, significantly, the one appertaining to the salient features thereof, trite feature No. vi whereof rather enunciates with vividity qua all buildings, flats, plots and independent houses existing in the complex being accessible by double lane motorable road, implying hence single roads, with, two lanes being enjoined to be constructed by the Housing Board, for hence the allottees accessing their respective abodes. The writ petitioner had also made an effort to bely the consensual echoings occurring in the order of the competent authority and in the report of the Local Commissioner, in respect of the contentious parcel, of, land being the dead end of the road also concerted to repulse the factum of its being used as a place for dumping garbage by the residents of the locality. However, the aforesaid contention is bereft of succor, in the face of the petitioner in the earlier instituted writ petition bearing CWP No.100 of 2005 borne in Annexure R-3/P, making the hereinafter extracted prayers:- “(i) That the respondent No.1 may kindly be directed not to allot to respondent No.2 dead end of lane No.2 in between house No. D-16 and House No.7-A shown in Annexure P-3. (ii) That the respondent No.1 may kindly be directed to proceed against respondent No.2 in accordance with law for clearing Dhara constructed by respondent No.2 at the dead end of lane No.2 in between House No. D-16 and House NO.7-A shown in Annexure P-3 (iii) That the respondent No.1 may kindly be directed to perform its statutory duties by repairing the retaining wall of lane No.2 near dead end metalling the road at the dead end of lane No.2, provide proper drainage and make available parking place at the dead end of the said lane, as shown in Annexure P-3, meant for common purposes.” Wherefrom, hence, he obviously accepts that the contentious parcel of land comprising the dead end of lane-2. Also in corroboration thereto echoings occur in Annexure P-25 qua the contentious parcel of land being mis-utilized by the residents of the area concerned, for dumping of garbage. Dehors the aforesaid conclusion, the writ petitioner had vehementally espoused before this Court, his claim, for his accessing, his house/plot through lane-2, claim whereof is rested on anvil of its user by him being imperative, especially for his accessing the 4th storey of his house, significantly, given his being also granted, a, purportedly valid permission under Annexure R-3/D, to construct a bridge with a width of 2.5 meter, bridge whereof connects the 4th storey of his building. Though, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3, has contested validity(ies) thereof in the face of sanctions in respect thereto, as borne in Annexure R-3/D, being applied for on 05.11.1993, whereas, it standing prior thereto approved on 1.7.1991, as displayed in the plan in respect thereto submitted by the petitioner. Consequently, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.3 contends that Annexure R- 3/D, rather being a sanction in respect of approvals granted by the competent authority in respect of the proposed building constructed by the petitioner upon plot No.7-A, contrarily, it not being with respect to the bridge, bridge whereof purveys access to his plot/building from lane No.2 besides, concomitant user thereof also enabling his accessing therefrom onto his 4th storey. However, the mere occurrence in the sanction order recorded vis-a-vis the petitioner in respect of his constructing a bridge, order whereof is borne in Annexure R-3/D and occurs at page 279, of, the paper book, qua it being in respect of an application made on 5.11.1993 by the petitioner, would not hence erode its efficacy unless evidence comprised in all records prepared in contemporaneity therewith, “predominantly” the apposite registers in respect thereof maintained by the authority concerned, with likewise therewith reflections, stood adduced, especially when only on adductions thereof, thereupon alone an inference would arise qua it standing not engendered by inadvertence or it being not hence a typographical mistake, contrarily, absences thereof, hence, sequel an inference that the aforesaid incompatibilities arising from sheer inadvertence or may be standing engendered by a typographical error nor hence detracting from the validations of apposite sanctions. However, the legitimacy of the right of user of the bridge by the petitioner, for his accessing his fourth storey and for his therefrom holding a concomitant right to also access it from lane-2, is, also to be tested, from, the approval accorded under Annexure R-3/F vis-avis the petitioner, for hence his raising construction upon the plot in respect whereof a lease deed was executed inter se him and the competent authority. A perusal of Annexure R-3/F discloses that he was initially accorded approval, to raise three floors. A perusal of Annexure R-3/F discloses that he was initially accorded approval, to raise three floors. However, as evident from Annexure R-3/K, exhibit whereof comprises a notice of 26.6.2004 issued upon the petitioner for his raising illegal constructions upon validly approved stories beneath it, also given the petitioner evidently, as, disclosed in Annexure R-3/N, making an attempt for regularising illegal constructions occurring “above” the approved constructions beneath thereto, constrains this court to record (a) sanction accorded vis-a-vis the petitioner to raise a bridge for his accessing the 4th storey of his building, not purveying any tenacity to him, for his hence staking a claim qua his therefrom by user of lane-2 accessing his 4th storey, yet only and always subject to the settled rights of respondent No.3 upon the contentious parcel of land occurring at lane-2, standing not infringed; (b) that the petitioner being not entitled to access the unauthorised portion of the building occurring above the road level and adjoining lane-2, or to make user of lane -2 along with his user of lane-3, for his accessing his 4th storey, significantly with hence validations meted vis-a-vis the attempts of the petitioner to make a dual access to his house, would beget infraction, of, the terms and conditions of the contract entered/executed inter se the petitioner and the competent authority, besides would infract the terms and conditions of the brochure, in pursuances whereof, the apposite lease deed stood executed. The effect, if any, of Annexure P-7 with a display therein qua unallotability, of, the contentious parcel of land vis-a-vis respondent No.3 is also subsumed by all the aforestated subsequent thereto developments also by valid reasons assigned by the competent authority in making the allotment besides by valid reasons assigned by it in rejecting the petitioner's objections. 6. Be that as it may, the writ petitioner has challenged the orders recorded in respect of the impugned allotment made vis-a-vis respondent No.3. However, initially though there was no challenge thrown to the lease deed executed in pursuance thereto, yet, an amendment in respect thereto stood strived through CMP No.1354 of 2008, however, the aforesaid CMP was subsequently dismissed as withdrawn, whereupon the writ petitioner is estopped to challenge the apposite lease deed executed in respect of the contentious parcel of land. However, initially though there was no challenge thrown to the lease deed executed in pursuance thereto, yet, an amendment in respect thereto stood strived through CMP No.1354 of 2008, however, the aforesaid CMP was subsequently dismissed as withdrawn, whereupon the writ petitioner is estopped to challenge the apposite lease deed executed in respect of the contentious parcel of land. Sequel whereof, is that with the petitioner challenging the decision making process in respect of the allotment of the contentious parcel of the land, vis-a-vis respondent No.3, whereas, his not casting any challenge to consummations thereto also constrains this Court, to, not grant the apposite relief to the writ petitioner. 7. The learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 has relied upon decisions recorded by this Court in CWP No.364 of 2016, CWP No.2196 of 2011, Review Petition No. 85 of 2016, CWP No. 356 of 2016 and CWP No. 163 of 2004,wherein this Court proceeded, to, for evident re-litigation or frivolous litigation hence impose heavy exemplary deterrent costs upon chronic litigants, for espousing that in consonance therewith, the instant petition be dismissed with exemplary deterrent costs. However, this Court is constrained to not accept the aforesaid submission, given this Court in its order recorded upon CWP No. 100 of 2005 directing the competent authority, to consider the making of the allotment of the contentious parcel of land vis-a-vis respondent No.3, after apposite objections in respect of its allotment being received and adjudicated upon, in complaint pursuances thereof, the contentious orders stood recorded. The writ petitioner had appeared before the competent authority and also argued in respect of the validity(ies) of his objections reared there before. It appears that he is aggrieved by the reasons assigned by the competent authority in its rejecting his objections. Consequently, when he has a right to challenge, the frailty or tenacity of the reasons assigned by the competent authority in its rejecting his objections, in respect of allotment of the contentious parcel of land visa- vis respondent No.3, in sequel, he cannot be said to be frivolously litigating. However, illegal constructions, if any, be subjected to process of law. 8. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in the instant petition which is accordingly dismissed. All pending applications also stand disposed of. Records be sent back forthwith.