ORDER : Rekha Borana, J. 1. The present writ petition has been preferred challenging the order impugned dated 14.12.2023 (Annexure-17) whereby the Letter of Intent (LOI) dated 12.06.2020 (Annexure-6) as issued in favour of the petitioner for establishment of retail outlet (Petrol Pump) has been cancelled. Vide order dated 14.12.2023, the LOI had been cancelled for the reason that the land conversion orders as well as essential ‘No Objection’ certificates from various Departments for establishment/running of the retail outlet had not been submitted by the petitioner to the respondent Corporation despite various notices for the said purpose having been served upon him. 2. The issue is that the land offered by the petitioner for establishment of retail outlet was put to acquisition vide notification dated 02.04.2018. 3. The case of the respondents is that once the notification for acquisition qua the land had been issued, the same could not have been offered by the petitioner for setting up of retail outlet. Further, the fact of the land been put to acquisition was concealed by the petitioner during the complete process and hence, the LOI was rightly cancelled as even after lapse of more than three years of the issuance of the LOI on 12.06.2020, requisite ‘No Objection’ certificates and land conversion orders were not furnished by the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was no concealment by the petitioner as the factum of the land been put to acquisition was not even known to him on the date when the land was offered by him. It is only when he was called upon by the Corporation to get the land converted and he applied for the same in the year 2022 (vide application dated 12.10.2022), the said fact came to his knowledge for the first time. Soon thereafter, the petitioner proceeded on to take on lease the adjoining land of Kila No.7 and offered the same including the remaining portion of the land of Kila No.8 (which remained after exclusion of land acquired). But the said land was not accepted by the respondent Corporation and it wrongly proceeded on to cancel the LOI. 5. Soon thereafter, the petitioner proceeded on to take on lease the adjoining land of Kila No.7 and offered the same including the remaining portion of the land of Kila No.8 (which remained after exclusion of land acquired). But the said land was not accepted by the respondent Corporation and it wrongly proceeded on to cancel the LOI. 5. Learned counsel submits that the land of Kila Nos.8 & 9 had been taken by him on lease in the year 2019 (lease deed dated 15.03.2019) and he being a lessee, not been informed by the lessor, was not aware of the fact of land been put to acquisition. He further submits that infact the land was acquired only after the order dated 20.12.2022 been passed by the Court. Prior to the said date, no proceedings for acquisition were undertaken and the petitioner was even in possession of the land in question. Therefore, there is no probability that he was aware of the land been put to acquisition. Further, as soon as the petitioner came to know of the said fact, he instantly proceeded on to acquire the adjoining land on lease and even offered the same to the respondent Corporation. The said alternate land ought to have been accepted by the respondent Corporation and the LOI ought not have been cancelled. 6. Learned counsel further submits that aggrieved of the show cause notices dated 11.02.2023 and 24.02.2023 issued by the respondent Corporation, he preferred a writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition NO.18337/2023 wherein learned counsel for the respondent orally undertook not to cancel the LOI till further orders of the Court but still the Corporation proceeded on to cancel the same vide the order impugned dated 14.12.2023. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent Corporation submits that the present was a clear case of concealment as the notification in terms of Section 3D(1) of the National Highways Act,1956 (for short ‘the Act of 1956’) was issued on 02.04.2018 and Gazette notification in terms of Section 3D of the Act of 1956 was made on 06.08.2018. As it is settled position of law, once the declaration in terms of 3D of the Act of 1956 was made, the land could not have been transferred in any manner. As it is settled position of law, once the declaration in terms of 3D of the Act of 1956 was made, the land could not have been transferred in any manner. Therefore, the lease deed dated 15.03.2019 itself could not have been executed by the petitioner, or for that matter, even by the owner of the land, for establishment of any retail outlet. Meaning thereby, application dated 06.04.2019 as preferred by the petitioner whereby he offered the land in question for setting up of the retail outlet, was itself misconceived. Learned counsel submits that even otherwise, the LOI having been issued on 12.06.2020, the petitioner was under an obligation to furnish all the requisite NOCs as well as the land conversion orders within the stipulated time, which he failed to furnish. Even after the communication dated 25.04.2022, calling for the documents pertaining to the conversion of the land, no response, whatsoever, was made till the month of December, 2022. The Department was therefore, left with no other option than to cancel the LOI. 8. In support of his submission, learned counsel relied upon the specific conditions of the advertisement/LOI in question as well as the undertaking as given by the petitioner to the effect that the LOI shall stand automatically withdrawn and cancelled if it is found that any material fact has been suppressed or misrepresented in the application. 9. So far as the averment made by learned counsel for the petitioner regarding the oral undertaking been given by learned counsel for the respondent in the earlier writ petition is concerned, learned counsel submitted that the same is also an incorrect fact as infact the LOI had already been cancelled on 14.12.2023 and the information of the same was even given to the petitioner vide email dated 15.12.2023. But the said fact was not brought to the knowledge of the Court on 18.12.2023 and hence, the oral undertaking even if any, was of no consequence. A copy of the email dated 15.12.2023 has been placed on record along with the reply as Annexure-R/3. 10. With the above submissions, learned counsel submits that the LOI issued to the petitioner was rightly cancelled. 11. Heard the learned counsels and perused the record. 12. A copy of the email dated 15.12.2023 has been placed on record along with the reply as Annexure-R/3. 10. With the above submissions, learned counsel submits that the LOI issued to the petitioner was rightly cancelled. 11. Heard the learned counsels and perused the record. 12. Before proceeding on the adjudication of the dispute in question, a reference to the prayers as made in the present writ petition would be relevant, which are as under : “(1) The respondent-IOCL may kindly be directed to quash the impugned order dated 14.12.2023 (Annex-17) whereby the LOI dated 12.06.2020 (Annex-06) has been cancelled; (2) The respondent-IOCL may kindly be directed to allot the subject retail outlet dealership to the petitioner in pursuance to the LOI dated 12.06.2020 (Annex-06) issued to the petitioner; (3) Any other writ, order or direction which your Lordship may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also kindly be issued in favour of the petitioner.” 13. A bare perusal of the above prayers makes it clear that it is nowhere the prayer of the petitioner that the respondent Corporation be directed to accept the alternate land as offered by him. The only prayer is for quashing of the order impugned dated 14.12.2023. Evidently, the order impugned dated 14.12.2023 has been passed because of non-furnishing of the conversion deeds and the requisite No Objection certificates of the respective Departments by the petitioner to the respondent Corporation. Meaning thereby, this Court is required only to adjudicate the legality of the order impugned dated 14.12.2023. 14. The LOI dated 12.06.2020 was evidently issued in favour of the petitioner after he having offered the land in question vide his application dated 06.04.2019. As per the LOI, the petitioner was under an obligation to make available the land within two months from the date of said letter, in absence of which, the offer was liable to be withdrawn. As is evident on record, the proceeding for conversion of the land itself was undertaken by the petitioner only in the month of October, 2022 i.e. after a period of more than two years of issuance of LOI. 15. As per the version of the petitioner himself, he came to know of the fact of the land having been put to acquisition for the first time on 20.12.2022. 15. As per the version of the petitioner himself, he came to know of the fact of the land having been put to acquisition for the first time on 20.12.2022. Interestingly, even after becoming aware of the said fact on 20.12.2022, he chose not to inform about the same to the respondent Corporation till the date he was served with the show cause notices dated 11.02.2023 and 24.02.2023, calling upon him to submit the land conversion orders and other No Objection certificates within a period of seven days. It is only after the said notices been served and he been warned that the LOI would be cancelled in absence of any response within a period of seven days, that he responded to the same vide communication dated 15.03.2023. It is for the first time in the month of March, 2023 that he informed the respondent Corporation of the land having already been acquired. Be that as it may. 16. So far as the LOI in question is concerned, it is an admitted position that the petitioner was under an obligation to make the land as offered by him available within a period of two months. Further, he was under an obligation to submit/furnish the requisite conversion deed as well as the respective NOCs of respective Departments for establishment of retail outlet. The LOI also specifically stipulated the condition that in case the site as offered by the petitioner for setting up the retail outlet is not developed as per the advice of the Corporation, the LOI shall stand withdrawn without any further notice. The LOI dated 12.06.2020 read as under : “Please be informed that by this Letter of Intent, we propose to offer you a Retail Outlet dealership of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. at the above location on the following terms & conditions:- 1. You have offered a suitable piece of land admeasuring 1225 Sq. Meter approx., 35 Meter (frontage) X 35 Meter (depth) at P.No.205/279, M.No.47, K.No.8 & 9, Village 70 R B; Taluka : RAISINGHNAGAR, District GANGANAGAR, you along with SH. SOHAN LAL as indicated by you in the application for the development of the subject Retail Outlet. You have to make available the land within 2 months from the date of this letter failing which this offer is liable to be withdrawn. 2. SOHAN LAL as indicated by you in the application for the development of the subject Retail Outlet. You have to make available the land within 2 months from the date of this letter failing which this offer is liable to be withdrawn. 2. For making the land available as required above, you will ensure that the land arranged by you is either registered in your name or it should be leased to you for a minimum period of 19 years & 11 months. 3. As and when advised by the Corporation, the site offered by you would be duly developed up to the road level by cutting/filling (as applicable), with good earth/ murrum, layer-wise compacted as per standard engineering practices. You shall also construct necessary retaining wall and compound wall of 1.5 meters height, designed as per site conditions as per approval of Corporation as committed under Clause 12(e) of affidavit submitted by you along with application. Kindly note that in case the site as offered by you for putting up the Retail Outlet is not developed as per the advice of the Corporation, this Letter Of Intent will be withdrawn without any further notice.” 17. As is clear on record, none of the conditions aforementioned has been complied with by the petitioner and hence, the respondent Corporation cannot be said to have acted malafidely or erroneously in proceeding on to cancel the LOI as issued to the petitioner. 18. Admittedly, the land as offered by the petitioner for establishment of the retail outlet is no more available with him or is in his ownership. 19. Learned counsel could not point out any condition/guideline to the effect that the respondent Corporation shall be under an obligation to accept the alternate land as offered by the petitioner. Therefore, even without going into the question as to whether the present was a case of concealment, this Court is of the clear opinion that the petitioner having failed to comply with the conditions of the LOI, is not entitled to pray for quashing of the order impugned dated 14.12.2023. 20. The order impugned dated 14.12.2023 being totally in consonance with the conditions of LOI and in consonance with law governing the parties, does not deserve any interference by this Court and the writ petition is hence, dismissed. 21. Stay petition and the pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.