JUDGMENT : 1. This is restoration application MCC No.1657 of 2018 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner to recall the order dated 18.12.2018, whereby restoration application filed for recall of the order dated 05.12.2018 has been dismissed for want of prosecution. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. In view of the reasons indicated in the affidavit accompanying the restoration application, same is allowed. Restoration application MCC No.1621 of 2018 is restored to its original number. 4. Also heard and perused the restoration application MCC No.1621 of 2018. 5. Reason shown for absence seems to be bona fide. Restoration application is allowed. Order dated 05.12.2018 is recalled. Writ petition is restored to its original number. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties on the merit of the writ petition. 7. Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs: “(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 16.9.2014 issued by respondent no.2 annexed as Annexure No.10 to the writ petition. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction, in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to consider and process the application of the petitioner for allotment of remaining land to the petitioner in pursuance to the recommendation dated 12.2.2004. (iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents that while considering and passing an allotment order or remaining 2914.61 sq.mt. of land the same may be made after providing subsidy as contemplated under Clause 12 of the byelaws dated 11.7.1988. (iv) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the layout dated 15.7.2006 issued by the respondents for Samudayik Kendra annexed as Annexure No.13 to the writ petition. (v) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned advertisement dated 14.03.2015 issued by the respondents annexed as Annexure No.14 to the writ petition. 8. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act and is engaged in the field of imparting education up to the level of secondary education. Second Respondent issued an advertisement on 18.11.1992 inviting applications for the purpose of allotment of land reserved for establishment of educational institutions. None turned up for the allotment of the land, thus, fresh advertisements were issued on 31.05.1997, 22.07.1997 and 12.09.1997. Second Respondent issued an advertisement on 18.11.1992 inviting applications for the purpose of allotment of land reserved for establishment of educational institutions. None turned up for the allotment of the land, thus, fresh advertisements were issued on 31.05.1997, 22.07.1997 and 12.09.1997. Subsequently on the application of the petitioner-society, plot admeasuring 2629.64 sq. mts., earmarked for the primary school, was allotted in its favour vide allotment order dated 01.07.1998. The petitioner accepted the allotment and lease was executed in its favour. Thereafter, on 11.10.2002 and again on 17.01.2003, petitioner society filed another application before the respondent authorities for allotment of remaining land in its favour. It is contended that the Secretary, Avas Evam Vikas Parishad recommended for allotment of remaining land in favour of the petitioner. Despite the recommendation made for allotment of remaining land in petitioner’s favour, the land was not allotted and by the impugned order dated 16.09.2014, the application submitted by the petitioner had been rejected. It is further contended that since the land was reserved for primary school, therefore, the application filed by the petitioner has illegally been rejected. 9. Respondents filed their counter affidavits and contended that initially the land was reserved for allotment to the educational institutions up to the secondary level but subsequently in the year 2006, having considered the necessity of the remaining land for the purpose of Community Centre, the layout was changed and land was reserved for Community Centre and the same was earmarked and allotted to the Community Centre. It is further contended that since the land has already been allotted to the Community Centre and the petitioner has not impleaded the allottee of the land i.e. the Community Centre, thus, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief in this regard. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that after the allotment of the land to the Community Centre, there is a dispute between the Uttarakhand Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad. The Uttarakhand Avas Evam Vikas Parishad is claiming the rights over the land situated within the territory of the State of Uttarakhand which is in the name of U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad as its own property and batch of petitions have been filed in this regard to adjudicate the rights of the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, which are pending considerations. 11. 11. Thus, at this stage, the relief sought by the petitioner cannot be granted by this Court. However, he would submit that in case any cause of action subsists in favour of the petitioner, petitioner may file the writ petition again. Writ petition is pending since 2014 and the same was dismissed time and again and restored. Since the petitioner is not entitled for the relief sought in the present writ petition, the petitioner cannot be given the liberty to file the writ petition again. Right to property is not a fundamental right. The sufficient piece of land has already been allotted to the petitioner. The petitioner has no legal claim for allotment over the remaining land, which has already been allotted to the Community Centre. At the time of accepting the allotment of part of the land, the petitioner did not raise any such objections and subsequently the petitioner cannot be permitted to claim as a matter of right over the remaining land. Writ Petition is devoid of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.