the original suit Sy.No.43 was not the subject matter. That apart it is not his case that he was an allottee of Sy.No.1/1 and Sy.No.44 from the respondents/authorities. It is a private party. Bulk Allotment Rules does not benefit a private party. He is asking for 15 guntas of land in Sy.No.43, which could be adjacent to his land. Mere situation of land next to the land of the petitioner will not get him any right, title or interest to claim the said land under any law. Therefore, the grievance of the petitioner is that inspite of several requests and demands made by him, the respondent has not considered to allot this land to him as marginal land seems to be without any basis. Unless the statute gives such right to the petitioner to claim the adjacent land, this court cannot assist him by giving direction to the respondents in one way or the other. On the other hand the very disclosure of facts from the petitioner and the documents would reveal the petitioner himself is not sure which is the land adjacent to his land, whether balance of land purchased by him from the Vendor-Sakamma of Sy.No.43. Viewed from any angle, I do not find any good ground to grant the relief sought for.
