ORDER : The captioned writ petition is filed seeking for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 24.11.2005 passed by the respondent as per Annexure-H. The petitioner is also seeking for a writ of mandamus to direct the respondent to execute lease-cum-sale agreement. 2. The facts leading to the case are as under : The respondent-authority allotted the site bearing No.1839 measuring 40 x 60 in Scheme No.35+43+43A, Kanabargi Belgaum. Accordingly, the respondent-authority issued an allotment letter dated 23.10.2000. It appears that the petitioner who was not happy with the plot which was allotted to him made a representation with a specific request to allot a different site within the range of 500 site numbers. The respondent having reconsidered the representation allotted a different site bearing No.1833 as against site bearing No.1839 which was earlier allotted. It appears that the petitioner was still not satisfied with the second allotment made. 3. It is stated by the petitioner at Para 4 of the writ petition that though he was insisting for an appropriate allotment of site within the range of 500 site numbers, he did not receive any communication regarding allotment of different site. It is stated that only in 2005 when he visited the office of the respondent, he found that in 2014 itself, the site bearing No.1839 allotted to the petitioner was cancelled by order dated 24.11.2005. It is further stated that after verifying the order dated 24.11.2005, the petitioner came to know that respondent has cancelled the allotment of first site. The grievance of the petitioner is that this exercise was done without issuing any notice to the petitioner. The petitioner is relying on the representation as per Annexures-B and D, which were submitted on 5.2.2002 and 5.5.2002 respectively. In both the representations, the petitioner has made a request to allot site within the range of 500 site numbers. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently argue and contend that the impugned cancellation order passed by the respondent as per Annexure-H is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. He would submit that his son on account of electrification had suffered 25% burn injuries and as such he was taking care of his son and thereby he was not in a position to seek remedy and challenge the impugned order as per Annexure-H. 5. He would submit that his son on account of electrification had suffered 25% burn injuries and as such he was taking care of his son and thereby he was not in a position to seek remedy and challenge the impugned order as per Annexure-H. 5. The impugned order as per Annexure-H is also challenged on the ground that the petitioner had submitted a representation seeking allotment of different site within the range of 500 site numbers and thereby he was under the bonafide impression that his representation is under consideration. Further, it is contended that the impugned order is passed in a cyclostyled form and there is no application of mind and that the impugned order is passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-authority would submit that after petitioner’s representation, the respondent-authority did take action and considered the request of the petitioner and allotted an alternate site bearing No.1833 as against original allotment of site bearing No.1839. Inspite of second allotment made, the petitioner never showed any inclination to get the lease-cum-sale agreement executed within the period of 45 days. There is total inaction on the part of the petitioner for almost 10 years. In that view of the matter, he would submit to this Court that this is not a fit case which would warrant interference at the hands of this Court. Since the petitioner failed to come forward to execute lease-cum-sale agreement, the respondent-authority was justified in passing the cancellation order. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent. 8. The petitioner is seeking allotment of a site from respondent-authority. While seeking allotment of site, there is no pre-existing right to pick and choose and dictate to respondent as to how and in what manner the allotment has to be made. However, in the present case on hand, it is found that the respondent-authority has addressed the case of the petitioner and has allotted an alternate site by executing an allotment letter on 15.4.2002 as per Annexure-C to the writ petition. Though respondent allotted an alternate site to the petitioner, still he kept on insisting that the respondent-authority should allot a site within a range of 500 sites and not beyond that. Though respondent allotted an alternate site to the petitioner, still he kept on insisting that the respondent-authority should allot a site within a range of 500 sites and not beyond that. All these materials indicate that the petitioner was virtually dictating terms to the respondent and was insisting to allot a particular site. Since the petitioner did not come forward to execute the lease-cum-sale agreement inspite of second allotment of site bearing No.1833, the respondent was rightly justified in passing the impugned order as per Annexure-H. This order is passed in 2005. The present writ petition is filed on 9.3.2015 and we are in 2021. Much of water has flown. The available site might have been dealt with by the respondent-authority. At this stage, if the impugned order is set aside, the same can cause prejudice to other allottees. The entire material on record clearly indicates that the petitioner was not diligent and was not interested in executing the lease-cum-sale agreement. The reason assigned by the petitioner that his son had suffered burn injuries in 2001 and this prevented him in approaching the respondent-authority cannot be termed as satisfactory reason. The said incident is being used by the petitioner to over come the inordinate delay in approaching the respondent-authority. The averments made by the petitioner would not enable the petitioner to over come the inaction that was caused on account of his own fault in not seeking the appropriate remedy swiftly. Since, there is total inaction on the part of the petitioner, I am of the view that this is not a fit case to interfere with the order under challenge. Further, the contention of the petitioner that there is no application of mind and there is violation of principles of natural justice cannot be gone into at this stage that too after lapse of 16 years after the passing of the impugned order. The allotment was made in 2000. In last 20 years, there is rapid urbanization. Despite its low level of urbanization in terms of magnitude, India’s urban population has grown substantially. Petitioner has not availed the benefit by executing lease agreement. It is a missed opportunity. This court cannot direct respondent-authority to re-allot after lapse of 20 years since there is tremendous spike in value of the sites. In that view of the matter, the petition is devoid of merits and accordingly, the same stands dismissed. Petitioner has not availed the benefit by executing lease agreement. It is a missed opportunity. This court cannot direct respondent-authority to re-allot after lapse of 20 years since there is tremendous spike in value of the sites. In that view of the matter, the petition is devoid of merits and accordingly, the same stands dismissed. No order as to costs.