1. ' The above petition was dismissed by us by a short order dated 28-1-1991 after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and Respondent No,1 and following are the details reasonings: ' The petitioner files the above petition to challenge the allotment by Respondent No,1 of 500 acres of land at Sandspit to Respondent No,2, on the ground that the above land should have been allotted by Respondent No,1 to the petitioner. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that under the memorandum of settlement dated 14-11-1988, entered into between Respondent No,1 and the then CBA, Respondent No,1 had agreed to grant 500 acres of land located near Mauripur Salt Works area to the petitioner for allotment to the workers of Respondent No,1 It is further contended that contrary to the above commitment made by Respondent No,1 to the then CBA the land was allotted to respondent No,2 which amounts to contravention of the terms of the settlement between the CBA and respondent No,1. Comments were called in the case by us before admission of the case and in the comments filed on behalf of respondent No,1 it is stated that no land was ever allotted or agreed to be allotted by Respondent No,I to the petitioner and as such the petition is not maintainable as the respondent No,1 never acquired any vested right under any law or settlement in respect of the allotment of disputed land. In paragraph 4 of the comments filed by Respondent No,1 it is stated as follows:- "4. Para 51 of the award 83 reads as under:- ' The Management will make efforts to acquire piece of land from Revenue Board provided KPT Employees Housing Cooperative Society is formed by the C.B.A.
2. ' This has nothing to do with the land in question and the concerned party would also be the existing C.B.A. And no one else. In fact, it is agreed in the said award that the management will make efforts to secure land from Revenue Board provided the petitioner forms the C.B.A. In this connection, it is stated that although the Committee was formed by the CBA belatedly, the management made all efforts to acquire the land but failed to do so."
3. ' The above statement made in paragraph 4 of the comments is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is, however, contended that the management had agreed to allot 500 acres of land to the petitioner which was subsequently allotted to Respondent No,1. In this connection learned counsel for the petitioner has defied on the minutes of the meeting of the Board of Directors of Respondent No,1 dated 24-5-1989. We have carefully gone through the minutes of the meeting of Board of Directors of Respondent No,1 relied on by the learned counsel and we are unable to find any commitment in the nature of allotment of disputed land in favour of the petitioner. It is an admitted position in the case that in terms of the memorandum of settlement dated 14-11-1988 the Respondent No,1 was to allot that land to the petitioner which respondent No,1 would have obtained from the Board of Revenue. It is also admitted before us that no land was allotted to Respondent No,1 by the Board of Revenue. It is not disputed that the allotment of 500 acres of land to Respondent No,2 by Respondent No,1 was made with the consent of the present CBA of Respondent No,1. Thus there is nothing on record to substantiate the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that 500 acres of land in the Mauripur Salt Work area which has been allotted to Respondent No, 2 by Respondent No, 1, was allotted earlier to the petitioner or that there was any firm commitment by Respondent No,1 to allot this very land to the petitioner. In the absence of any material to establish that the land which has been allotted to Respondent No,2 is the same land which was earlier allotted to the petitioner or was committed for allotment to the petitioner by Respondent No,1, the petitioner acquired no vested right, in respect of the disputed land so as to entitle them to challenge the allotment of this land to Respondent No,2. No case for interference is made out. The petition is accordingly dismissed summarily.