JUDGMENT : (Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, J.) 1. Heard Sri Rakesh Pandey, learned counsel assisted by Sri Vishesh Rajvanshi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri K.M. Garg, learned counsel assisted by Sri Sumit Daga, learned counsel for respondent no.4 and Sri Rajesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the Development Authority. 2. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 18.11.2000 passed by respondent no.2 by which allotment of Shop No.G-3 in favour of petitioner was cancelled on the ground that petitioner as well as his son both were having two adjacent shops G-2 and G-3 on the ground floor facing Bhagat Singh Road and both of these shops are being used for the business of watch and there is scarcity of shop facing to Bhagat Singh Road. 3. Initially the present writ petition was allowed by order dated 03.05.2018 and impugned order dated 18.11.2000 was quashed and respondent nos.2 and 3 were directed to handover the possession of Shop No.G-3 to petitioner. Thereafter, a recall application was filed by respondent no.4 along with impleadment application to recall the order dated 03.05.2018 on the ground that shop in question has been allotted to him in the year 2002 during the pendency of the present writ petition and he has been in possession of Shop No.G-3 and running business of watch and he was not heard before passing of the order dated 03.05.2018 though he is proper party. Aforesaid recall application of the respondent no.4 was allowed and he was also impleaded as respondent no.4 by order dated 11.05.2023. As the sole-petitioner has also died, therefore, his son Raj Kumar was also impleaded as petitioner no.1/1 in the present petition by order dated 15.05.2023. The factual matrix of present case is as follows : 4. Petitioner as well as respondent no.4 and several other persons claim themselves to be allottees of different shops constructed over nala and lease deed were also executed in their favour by the Nagar Palika Parishad, Muzaffarnagar. Thereafter, in the beautification plan, Muzaffarnagar Development Authority proposed to demolish the shops constructed over the nala and in lieu of that, all the displaced shop keepers, who were having shops constructed over nala, were offered shops in shopping complex adjacent to Bhagat Singh Road Muzaffarnagar. In pursuance of that plan, shops were allotted in shopping complex adjacent to Bhagat Singh Road. 5. In pursuance of that plan, shops were allotted in shopping complex adjacent to Bhagat Singh Road. 5. An agreement dated 26.06.1999 was executed between the petitioner, Rohit Lal and Muzaffarnagar Development Authority for the allotment of Shop No.G-1, subject to condition that he will withdraw his pending appeal before the High Court. The appeal pending in the High Court was filed under Order 23 Rule 1 CPC and related to the power of the Development Authority to demolish the shops constructed on the nala and to evict the shopkeepers from the nala. 6. From the records, it also appears that one Saidas was allotted Shop No.G-3 at ground floor and son of petitioner-Rohit Lal who is presently petitioner no.1/1 was allotted Shop No.G-2 at ground floor. Subsequently, with the permission of Muzaffarnagar Development Authority, petitioner-Rohit Lal had exchanged his shop with Saidas and finally Shop No.G-3 was allotted to petitioner-Rohit Lal and Shop No.G-1 was allotted to Saidas. 7. Subsequently, a dispute arose between different allottees for the allotment of shops on ground floor of shopping complex for the shops facing towards Bhagat Singh Road and several petitions were filed before this Court which were also disposed of by common order dated 03.05.2018 and present writ petition is one of the writ petitions in which the order dated 03.05.2018 was recalled on 11.05.2023, at the instance of respondent no.4. 8. From perusal of original record of Muzaffarnagar Development Authority produced before the Court, it appears from the note sheet that in lieu of earlier shop at nala, Shop No.G-3 was allotted to petitioner-Rohit Lal and in lieu of Shop No.31 situated over nala, Shop No.G-2 was allotted to Raj Kumar (petitioner no.1/1) and in lieu of Shop No.32 over nala, Saidas was allotted Shop No.G-1. There was no interim order in favour of the petitioner in the present writ petition and during the pendency of the present petition, Shop No.G-3 was allotted to respondent no.4, the recall applicant. 9. There was no interim order in favour of the petitioner in the present writ petition and during the pendency of the present petition, Shop No.G-3 was allotted to respondent no.4, the recall applicant. 9. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that impugned order is absolutely erroneous because allotment of Shop No.G-3 made in favour of petitioner-Rohit Lal was cancelled merely because his son Raj Kumar (petitioner no.1/1) was also having adjacent Shop No.G-2 on ground floor facing towards Bhagat Singh Road, Muzaffarnagar because father and son were allotted shops in lieu of their different shops over nala at Bhagat Singh Road and both of them have been doing independent business. 10. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent no.4 contended that after cancellation of allotment of G-3 in favour of petitioner-Rohit Lal by the impugned order on 18.10.2000, same was allotted to him on 03.12.2002, during the pendency of the present petition, as no interim order was granted, in the present case in lieu of his Shop No.21/1 existing over nala at Bhagat Singh Marg. Thereafter, sale deed was also executed in favour of respondent no.4 regarding Shop No.G-3 on 22.03.2003 by Muzaffarnagar Development Authority, therefore, he became absolute owner of the Shop No.G-3. It was further submitted by learned counsel for the respondent no.4 that at the time of allotment of Shop No.G-3 in the year 2002 or at the time of execution of sale deed in 2003 regarding Shop No.G-3, he was not informed by the Muzaffarnagar Development Authority about the present litigation regarding Shop No.G-3. Therefore, respondent no.4 is bonafide purchaser for consideration without knowledge of pendency of present petition and now his business of watch in the name of Lucky Watch has been established and same has been running since 2002. Therefore, he cannot be evicted and his sale deed dated 22.03.2003 regarding Shop No.G-3 cannot be cancelled in exercise of extraordinary discretionary power of this Hon’ble Court because he has right to remain in possession. Even in equity also, considering his established business in Shop No.G-3 running since 2002, and also the fact that substituted petitioner Raj Kumar is having four other shops on ground floor having Shop Nos.G-2, G-33, G-34 and G-35, he should not be dispossessed. Even in equity also, considering his established business in Shop No.G-3 running since 2002, and also the fact that substituted petitioner Raj Kumar is having four other shops on ground floor having Shop Nos.G-2, G-33, G-34 and G-35, he should not be dispossessed. Learned counsel for respondent no.4 also relied upon the GST receipt showing that business of watch in Shop Nos.G-2 and G-3 was being run by the petitioner-Rohit Lal. Though, the Shop No.G-2 was allotted to son of Rohit Lal but business of watch was run by Rohit Lal, in both the shops, till the cancellation of allotment regarding Shop No.G-3. 11. Lastly, it was submitted by learned counsel for respondent no.4 that, even though, the impugned order is confirmed by this Court then no prejudice will be caused to petitioner because he is already having four shops at ground floor facing towards Bhagat Singh Marg and if impugned order is set aside then petitioner will suffer irreparable loss because he has only one shop i.e. G-3 on ground floor facing towards Bhagat Singh Road in which his business of watch has been established. 12. It is relevant to note that in his affidavit, the Secretary of the Development Authority has admitted that no information was given to respondent no.4 about the pendency of the present petition in this Court. 13. Considering the rival contentions and on perusal of record, it is clear that all the displaced shop keepers, who were having shops at nala at Saheed Bhagat Singh Marg, wanted to take shop at ground floor facing towards the main road i.e. Bhagat Singh Road. Though, there were limited shops, therefore, only 20 persons including the petitioner-Rohit Lal and petitioner no.1/1 Raj Kumar could initially get shop at ground floor of the complex (Tehsil Vyavasaye Ki Yojana Part II) facing towards Bhagat Singh Road. As the petitioner-Rohit Lal and his son Raj Kumar both of them were having two adjacent shops (G2 and G3) at ground floor facing towards Bhagat Singh Road and both of them were running the same business, therefore, Muzaffarnagar Development Authority by the impugned order dated 18.11.2000 cancelled the allotment of Shop No.G-3 in favour of petitioner and retained the shop of petitioner no.1/1 so as to adjust other displaced shop keepers at ground floor. From perusal of impugned order, it appears that it was passed on the ground that there is unavailability of shops facing towards Bhagat Singh Marg and petitioner as well as his son were having two adjacent shops at ground floor facing towards Bhagat Singh Marg and both of them were running watch selling business. Though, there is no allotment order regarding Shop No.G-3 in favour of petitioner-Rohit Lal on record but from the perusal of note sheet produced before the court by Muzaffarnagar Development Authority as well as from the impugned order, it appears that the Shop No.G-3 was allotted to petitioner-Rohit Lal. Mere allotment of shop does not give unfettered right to execute the sale deed of the shop in question in favour of petitioner. Allotment in favour of petitioner-Rohit Lal at the most can be equated to agreement to sell. It does not give absolute right to petitioner to compel the municipal authority to sell that shop to him. On the other hand after allotment of shop in 2002, sale deed regarding Shop No.G-3 was also executed in favour of respondent no.4 on 22.03.2003 which absolutely transferred the ownership in favour of respondent no.4 and who after obtaining the possession, established his business of watch selling. Considering the equity and bonafide conduct of respondent no.4 in purchasing the shop without knowledge of the present litigation, quashing the order dated 18.11.2000 will disturb the established shop of the respondent no.4. Even otherwise, after the death of petitioner-Rohit Lal, the right of the Rohit Lal has been succeeded by his son Raj Kumar (Petitioner No.1/1), therefore now, Raj Kumar (Petitioner No.1/1) who has been running G-2 shop and other purchased shops during the pendency of present petition on the ground floor, will not suffer irreparable loss or prejudice. 14. In view of the above fact, we do not find it fit to interfere in the impugned order dated 18.11.2000. 15. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.