JUDGMENT Shukla, J. -- 1. Heard on I.A. No. 14876/2019, an application for condonation of delay in filing the instant appeal and also on admission. 2. The present appeal is filed under section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalay (Khand Nyaypeeth ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 being aggrieved by the order dated 13.7.2017 passed in W.P. No. 8193/2011 by the learned Single Judge whereby the writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus for allotment of land for establishment of education hub has been dismissed. 3. There is enormous delay in filing the present appeal. An explanation has been offerred that the petitioner/appellant is an octogenarian, suffering from old age ailments and, therefore, the appeal could not be filed within the prescribed period. On going through the medical certificates of the appellant appended to the interlocutory application, we do not find that any sufficient cause is made out in filing the present appeal with such inordinate delay. The enormous delay has not been explained properly. 4. Accordingly the I.A. No.14876/2019 is rejected. 5. In addition to that, we have also examined the case on merit and we do not find any case on merit as well, warranting any interference in the intra Court appeal. 6. The facts adumbrated in a nutshell are that the appellant/society had applied to the State Government for allotment of land with an idea to set up a non-commercial institute like Delhi School of Economics and an education hub. The allotment of the land was sought free of costs or at normal price. There was some recommendation by the Intra Departmental Committee (IDC) and the matter was placed before the Cabinet. The petitioner/appellant preferred a writ petition, the subject-matter of W.P. No. 4795/2009, seeking a direction for allotment of land, which was disposed of with a direction to the authorities to dwell upon the representation and pass a reasoned order within a time-bound period. After various reminders, the representation was rejected and the appellant filed another writ petition (W.P. No. 1527/2011) which was also disposed of by this Court with a direction to the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner by passing a speaking order in compliance to the previous order. Thereafter by the impugned order the representation of the petitioner was rejected. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order by referring various note-sheets and recommendations. 7. Thereafter by the impugned order the representation of the petitioner was rejected. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order by referring various note-sheets and recommendations. 7. The learned Single Judge after considering the material held that by such recommendations or noting of various officials in the departmental files/note-sheets, the petitioner/appellant cannot claim as a matter of right allotment of the land in his favour. There is no positive legal right to claim allotment of the land. The learned Single Judge has referred to the judgment rendered by the apex Court in the cases of Sethi Auto Service Station v. DDA, [ (2009)1 SCC 180 ]; Jasbir Singh Chhabra v. State of Punjab, [ (2010)4 SCC 192 ]; and Vivek Batra v. Union of India, [ (2017)1 SCC 69 ]. After referring to the aforesaid judgments the learned Single Judge held that since there is no legal right in favour of the petitioner/appellant, therefore, no writ of mandamus can be issued to the State Government to allot the land to the petitioner-society. 8. We do not perceive any error in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge warranting any interference in the present intra-Court appeal. 9. Accordingly the writ appeal, being sans merit, stands dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs. ...............