JUDGMENT
R.C. Lahoti, J.
(1) This order shall govern the disposal of Cwp Nos. 774/92, 869/92,870/92,888/92, 889/92,74/94,448/94,605/94,606/94,607/94 and Cm 4119/91 in Cw 3362/90 also.
(2) All these petitions raise common questions of fact and law in the backdrop of same set of events. The pleadings are similar except for a minor difference in the case of Jagdish Lal Sharma (CWP-2258/91) which shall be noticed a little after. The arguments have been heard analogously in all these matters.
(3) At this stage it is beyond the pale of controversy that the land over which the several petitioners claim to have had their houses standing on has been subject matter of land acquisition proceedings under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894; the acquisition proceedings having achieved a finality on 19.9.86 with land acquisition award No. 14/86-87 having been made.
(4) According to the petitioners, they had purchased the pieces of land on which their respective houses were standing from S.K. Chopra, the owner of the land, in July, 1987. There is no title deed as such, transferring title by the erstwhile owner to the several petitioners and executed and registered in accordance with the provisions of the Transfer Property Act and the Registration Act. It appears that the erstwhile owner has executed deeds of agreement and acknowledgments reciting receipt of consideration, sworn in affidavits and appointed the respective purchasers as his general power of attorney holders in respect of the pieces of land purportedly alienated. He has also executed deeds of will appointing each of the purported purchasers as executors in respect of the respective pieces of land. The fact remains that all these transactions have taken place subsequent to the date 19.9.86. The persons in occupation of the land were all dispossessed on 29.5.90.
4.1According to the petitioners while they were being dispossessed, Shri J.P.Singh0 Commissioner Demolition Wing — an official of the Dda, had issued chits to them alloting Janta Flats situated in. Pocket- Ii Hastsal Village. Jagdish Lal Sharma, the petitioner in Cwp 2558/91 was allotted an Lig flat. The officials of the Dda had themselves shifted the effects of the petitioners to the respective flats allotted to them and inducted them into possession of the flats. Ever since then they are continuing in possession of the flats. Subsequently allotment-cum-demand letters have been issued to the petitioners demanding price of the flats in their occupation. They are being threatened with dispossession for non-payment of money.
4.2The petitioners submit that the flats were allotted to them by the Dda in lieu of their houses having been demolished and the Dda is not, therefore, justified in raising any demand for the price of the flats. They are the owners of the flats respectively in their possession and they cannot be evicted therefrom.
(5) According to the Dda the title over the land over -which the petitioners had constructed their houses had stood vested in the Dda consequent to the acquisition. On 29.5.90, the Land Acquisition Collector, Delhi Administration claimed the site by removing all those who were in unauthorised possession thereof, in the process of delivering vacant and physical possession to the Dda, the land having been acquired; for the prestigious Dwarka Project of the DDA. Demolition was not carried out by the DDA. The structures were removed by the Land Acquisition Collector, Delhi Administration. It was purely on humanitarian considerations that the evacuated families were shifted to Janta Flats in Hastsal with a view toy providing shelter to them only as a temporary measure. No assurance of allotment, much less the allotment, of any flat or a particular flat was made by the Dda to any of the petitioners. However, the Lt. Governor considered the cases of the petitioners for out of turn allotment on humanitarian grounds pursuant to which decision; allotment-cum-demand letters were issued to some of the petitioners on 30.9.91 alloting them flats in pocket C Group-II Hastsal Village Residential Scheme. The petitioners have not deposited the amount. as per the allotment-cum-demand letters. They are illegally occupying the flats and are liable to be evicted. The petitions are totally misconceived and amount to an abuse of the process of the Court.
(6) In response to the order of the Court, directing the Dda to file an additional affidavit giving a few particulars, Mr.K.J.AIphons has filed an affidavit dated 20.8.92. It would be useful to briefly reproduce a few facts therefrom, which are stated in sub-paras hereinafter.
6.1Land falling in Khasra No.4/20 in Village Kakrola was acquired vide award No. 14/86-87 of 6.8.86. Physical possession of vacant land measuring 3 bighas and 4 biswas was handed over to Dda on 29.5.90 by the Land Acquisition Collector, Land & Building Deptt., Delhi Administration after removing the unauthorised structures on the said land.
6.2Some of the occupants of the structures removed were shifted to Janta Flats in Hastsal on humanitarian grounds for providing temporary shelter to them. In all, 54 slips were issued as per the list Annexure R 1, recording removal of the occupants. Out of these 54, only 33 persons were found eligible for out of turn allotment of Janta Flats on compassionate grounds vide Annexure R-3.
6.3Out of above said 33 persons, records of 32 occupants were found in order on verification and they were held eligible for out of turn allotment of Janta Flats.
6.4In so far as Jagdish Lal Sharma, the petitioner in Cwp No. 2558/91 is concerned, his wife became unconscious on the date of demolition and on medical grounds she was permitted to shift temporarily in Flat No.58-B, Pocket-B, Lig, Hastsal. On allotment of Janta flat he was to be removed from Lig flat to Janta Flat No.459, Hastsal. Flat No.58-B, Lig though lying vacant, had stood already allowed to one Rabhubir Singh who had made the payment and submitted the documents well in time. Possession letter was also issued to Raghubir Singh but due to unauthorised occupation by Jagdish Lal Sharma, physical possession of the flat could not be handed over to Raghubir Singh.
6.5Out of 32 persons who have been allotted Janta Flats, only one has made payment while other 31 are illegally holding to the temporary shelters and refusing to make payment of the amounts demanded from them in terms of out of turn allotment letters.
6.611 evictees who were not found eligible for out of turn allotment of Janta Flat on verification of their papers and records have already been removed from the temporary shelter provided to them.
(7) On behalf of Union of India, Delhi Administration and Land Acquisition Collector, affidavit of Shri P.C. Chaturvedi, Lac (PN) dated 17.5.93 has been filed wherein it is stated that the land bearing Khasra No.4/20, measuring 4 bighas and 16 biswas having been acquired vide award dated 19.9.86, on 23.9.86 formal possession was handed over to the Dda and on 29.5.90 and 6.3.91, vacant physical possession was actually handed over to the Dda through Land and Building Deptt. of Delhi Administration by removing all the structures by the demolition squad.
(8) The following is the chart showing the allotment of flats as approved by Lt. Governor to the several petitioners and the flats in their occupation :- Cw No. Name of the Flat No. in Flat Allotted Remarks petitioner occupation (in pocket-C) 2558/91 Jagdish Lal 58, Pocket-B 459 (Janta) Flat No.58-B Sharma Lig Flat Lig is subject matter of Cwp 3362/90 as having been allotted to Raghubir Singh. 869/92 Murari Lal 486, (Janta) 486 (Janta) 774/92 Vimla Devi 498 (Janta) Not found eligible for allotment. Already evicted. Geeta Devi 497 (Janta) – do 870/92 Jaipal 485 (Janta) 485 (Janta) – 888/92 Ajit Kumar 494 (Janta) 494 (Janta) Ghosh 889/92 Inderjit 489 (Janta) 489 (Janta) 74/94 Harbans Lal 487 (Janta) 487 (Janta) 448/94 K.P.Shashtri471 (Janta) Found ineligible for allotment Naresh Kumar Shashtri 605/94 Om Parkash 461 (Janta) – Found ineligible for allotment. 606/94 Parvati Devi428 (Janta) – do 607/94 Shanti Devi 446 (Janta) 448 (Janta) Liable to be exchanged.
(9) The Flat No.58-B, Part-B, Lig category has a story little different from the common one to narrate.
(10) We may notice the facts of Cwp No.3362/90 which was filed by Shri Rabhubir Singh on 24.10,90 as those facts will be relevant for deciding the case of Jagdish Lal Sharma (CWP 2558/91).
10.1Flat No.58, Ground Floor, Lig was allotted to Raghubir Singh vide allotment letter dated 20.4.90, pursuant to a draw held on 17.12.89. Actual possession was not handed over to him and seeking relief of possession he had approached the Court by filing a writ petition on 24.10.90.
10.2CWP 3362/90 filed by Raghubir Singh was disposed of on 14.5.91 by a Division Bench issuing writ of mandamus commanding the respondent-DDA to deliver possession of the flat No.58, Pocket-B, Lig Category, to the petitioner Raghubir Singh. It was also directed that in case possession was not delivered, the petitioner Raghubir Singh would be entitled to get possession through issue of warrant of possession.
10.3On 31.5.91 Raghubir Singh moved an application (CMNo.4119/91) for issuance of warrant of possession on which notice was issued to Dda and thereafter the case has got tagged with the Cwp 2558/91 filed by Jagdish Lal Sharma in view of the obvious conflict in the reliefs sought for in the two petitions.
(11) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. We have also called for the record of the original proceedings with respect to the above said flats and perused the same. We find the stand taken in the counter filed by the Dda substantiated from the original record.
(12) File No.F.I(19)/89/PPK-Papankala Project has been made available for our perusal. A perusal thereof reveals that substantial land was acquired for a prestigious development plan of Dda which was known as Dwarka Project. Access to the project area was required to be provided from Najafgarh Road by laying an access road on a part of the acquired land. That part had come to be occupied by encroachments and unauthorised constructions out of which some were by the petitioners herein. These encroachments and unauthorised constructions were posing a serious problem and hurdle in the completion of the project. At one point of time, the authorities were inclined to give up the idea of removing encroachments and unauthorised constructions because of the likelihood of law and order problem arising. However, it was one Shri J.P. Singh, the then Commissioner, Dwarka Project who did not leave the nerve and took initiative in seeing that the project was carried out to its fulfillment, resorting to a bold decision and action of removing encroachments and unauthorised constructions inspite of the magnanimity of the task. He suggested the demolition subject to rehabilitation as an interregnum being provided to the occupants of unauthorised constructions. He made a wide publicity attempting at mobilising public opinion towards, the fulfillment of the project. He also motivated the encroachers and occupants of unauthorised constructions, to cooperate in the demolition subject to their being shifted to places where temporary shelter could be provided. In the process of doing so, some of the unauthorised occupants were issued with demolition slips at the spot and the claims of some were verified a little later and they were also issued with demolition slips. The demolition slips only go to show that these were the persons in occupation of unauthorised constructions at the site. He kept his word and mobilised the administration upto the level of Lt.Governor soliciting out-of-turn allotments on compassionate grounds so that the flats could be allotted, to such of the persons who were really in occupation of the unauthorised constructions over the acquired land in view of his having assured them of such rehabilitation. The fact remains that Shri J.P.Singh, the Commissioner Dwarka Project was not in anyway authorised by the Dda to make the allotments nor did he at any time claim or propagate or hold out that he was so authorised.
(13) On 30.11.95 and 1.12.95 we have directed the learned counsel for both the parties to file charts providing the information as to the flats in possession of each of the petitioners, the flats allotted to the petitioners with allotment letter numbers, the amount deposited, if any, by any of the allottees pursuant to the allotment-cum-demand letter and remarks, if any. The information made available by Dda in the shape of a chart, duly supported by an affidavit, has been set out in para 8 above.
(14) The information provided on behalf of the petitioners was at little variance with the information made available on behalf of the Dda, but having compared the two charts it was conceded on behalf of the petitioners by their learned counsel that the facts stated hereinabove, as extracted from the chart filed on behalf of the Dda supported by affidavit of the Director (H)-II, were correct.
(15) We may now proved to dispose of each of the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners.
(16) The fast contention that the petitioners were allotted LIG/Janta flats free of cost in lieu of their houses having been demolished by the Dda is totally devoid of merit and needs a summary dismissal. We have no reasons to disbelieve the plea taken in the counter that the land was acquired by Delhi Development Authority for the Dwarka Project Of DDA. In the rejoinder filed by the petitioners, the factum of the land having been subject matter of acquisition proceedings has not been denied. The plea of the petitioners that they were bonafide purchasers of the property is not available for consideration in view of Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 which provides as under :-
(16) “WHEN an award has been made under Section 11 and possession of the land taken then it shall vest absolutely in the Government free-from all encumbranches.”
The plea that the petitioners were bonafide purchasers cannot be entertained in face of the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. They were in unauthorised occupation and liable to be removed in the process of taking of possession by the Land Acquisition Collector, and handing over vacant physical possession to the Dda for whose purpose the land was acquired. In as much as the petitioners were unauthorised occupants there was no question of Dda having allotted flats free of cost. to any of the petitioners. There is substance in the plea of Dda that it was purely on humanitarian grounds that while being evacuated from the acquired land they were provided temporary shelter in the Janta Flats which were lying ready as a part of some residential scheme of the DDA.
(17) We may with advantage quote from a recent judgment of Supreme Court in Sneh Prabha Vs. State of U.P., 1995 WAD-SC(C) 279 wherein in the context of extending benefit of allotment of alternate land scheme to a person having acquired land after the date of notification under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act, their Lordships have observed-: “It is settled law that any person who purchases land after publication of the notification Under-Section 4(1), does so at his/her own peril. The object of publication of the notification under Section 4(1) is notice to everyone that the land is needed or is likely to be needed for public purpose and the acquisition proceedings points out an impediment to anyone to encumber the land acquired thereunder. It authorises the designated officer to enter upon the land to do preliminaries etc. Therefore, any alienation of land after the publication of the notification under Section 4(1) does not bind the Government or the beneficiary under the acquisition. On taking possession of land, all rights, titles and interests in land stand vested in the State, under Section 16 of the Act, free from all encumbrances and there by absolute title in the land is acquired thereunder. If any subsequent purchaser acquires land, his/her only right would be subject to the provisions of the Act and/or to receive compensation for the land. In a recent judgment, this Court in Union of India Vs. Shri Shiv kumar Bhargava & Ors. (JT 1995(6)SC 274) considered the controversy and held that a person who purchases land sub-sequent to the notification is not entitled to alternative site.” (para 5)
(18) The owner of the land could not have after the date of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 alienated the land and created new title or encumbrance.
(19) The slips which were issued under the hand of Shri J.P. Singh, an official of the Dda are similar all the cases. One of them, which was issued to petitioner Jagdish Lal Sharma, is as under :-
Shri Jagdish Lal Sharma may be allotted Lig house against Wzb 81-A, Patel Garden Extension.
Their mother is a heart patient. She may be allotted Lig Gr.F1. House,
CORNERFlat.
SD/-
(J.P.Singh)
29.5.90
COMMISSIONER(DW)
(20) Others were issued with slips on 22:6.90 in the following form :-
Delhi Develolpment Authority
Papan Kalan (Dwarka) Project
FILENo. F1(41)90/PP
S1.No.41
DATED22/6/90
Shiv Bhagwan Dass S/o.Shri Dashrath
Ration Card No.305947 date 1.1.88
Removed from Patel Garden/Sewak Park on 18.6.90.
FLATNo.449
Sd/
OFFICERIncharge
(21) On the bare perusal of the slips in question two things are apparent. None of the slips is an allotment or a promise to make an allotment. Secondly, the slips are signed by an official of DDA. We have repeatedly asked the learned counsel for the petitioners during the course of hearing, if any statutory provision, contained in any act or rules, or any executive instructions or even a policy decision could be pointed out which authorises any officer of the Dda to issue such slips tantamounting to allotment of a flat free of cost or otherwise, entitling to such allotment a person who was being dispossessed from his unauthorised occupation of the land vesting in the State. None has been pointed out or brought to our notice. The learned counsel for the Dda has made a categoric statement at the bar that there was no law, policy or decision governing the respondent Dda which may support the claim of the petitioners as canvassed or which may authorise or which may vest an officer of the Dda like Shri J.P.Singh issuing slips for allotment so as to bind the DDA.
(22) The respondent-DDA has rightly taken the plea that some of the petitioners having been placed in possession of certain Janta Flats in fortuitous circumstances, their cases were put up to the Lt. Governor soliciting out-of-turn allotments on compassionate grounds. The Lt. Governor has passed such orders and made allotments as reflected in the table set out in para 8 above, pursuant to which allotment-cum-demand letters have been issued on 30.9.91. The petitioners should have felt satisfied with the letters of allotment so issued and should have honoured the demand made therein. Their claim for continuing in occupation in utter disregard of the allotment- cum-demand letters cannot be entertained; the privilege under the allotment-cum- demand letters having been lost by them for their non-compliance with the terms thereof.
(23) Pleas of estoppels and waiver were forcefully raised and pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioners, which too have to be rejected. Prof.H.Z.R. Wade states the law of estoppel and ultra vires in his work on Administrative Law (1988 Edition, pp 262-263) as under :-
“In public law the most obvious limitation on the doctrine of estoppel is that it cannot be invoked so as to give an authority powers which it does not in law possess. In other words, no estoppel can legitimate action which is ultra vires.”
“Where a Minister took possession on land under statutory powers.) of occupation which did not extend to the grant of leases, he was not estopped from denying that he had granted a lease, even though he had expressly purported to ‘let’ the land to a ‘tenant’. The result was the same where the supposed landlord was a local authority which had failed to obtain the requisite consent from the minister, so that the lease was void. Accordingly the local authority were at liberty to deny the validity of their own ‘lease’, contrary to the rules which govern private lettings. No arrangement between the parties could prevent either of them from asserting the fact that the lease was ultra vires and void.”
(24) In Assistant Custodian, E.P. and Ors. Vs. Brij Kishore Agarwal and Ors., , the following passages from the decision of House of Lords in Howell VS. Falmouth Boat Construction Co.Ltd., 1951 Ac 837 have been cited with approval :-
“The illegality of an act is the same whether or not the actor has been misled by an assumption of authority on the part of a Government Officer however high or low in the hierarchy. I do not doubt that in criminal proceedings it would be a material factor that the actor had been thus misled if knowledge was a necessary element of the offence, and in any case it would have a bearing on the sentence to be imposed. But that is not the question. The question is whether the character of an act done in face of a statutory prohibition is affected by the fact that it has been induced by a misleading assumption of authority. In my opinion the answer is clearly no. Such an answer may make more difficult the task of the citizen who is anxious to walk in a narrow way, but that does not justify a different answer being given.”
“Neither a minister nor any subordinate officer of the Crown can by any conduct or representation bar the Crown from enforcing a statutory prohibition or entitle the subject to maintain that there has been no breach of it.”
(25) In Rachapudi Subramanyam & Ors. VS. The District Collector, East Godavari, Kakinada & Ors., , the petitioner-businessmen were provisionally appointed (subject to approval of the Government) as fair – price shop dealers by the Collector. They were asked to furnish deposit, to execute the agreement and to complete other formalities. The Government after having found that more number of shops were not acquired, the petitioners could not be authorised finally and sugar quota released to them. The agreements executed by them were also not approved by the Government. The distribution of levy sugar, number of shops necessary for it, registration and allotment of ration cards, quota to be given to a shop, all these matters were for the Government to decide. The Collector was not the final authority in the matter and the Government could even cancel the provisional allotment. It has been held that in the circumstances, there was no representation made by the Collector that they would be given levy sugar relying on which they could have acted to their detriment thus binding the Government by estoppel.
(26) In the case at hand, we are not satisfied to hold that any of the petitioners was entitled to or was allotted a flat. There is also no promise of allotment made by anyone. The demolition officer could not also have made any allotment to anyone out of flats which were constructed by Dda as a part of some residential scheme. No such authority vesting in Shri J.P. Singh so as to bind the Dda by an allotment, if any, made by him has been shown to exist. It is difficult to believe that the unauthorised occupants of any land acquired by the State would have been promised allotment of flats much less an allotment free of cost.
(27) Om Parkash, petitioner in Cw 605/94, Parvati Devi, petitioner in Cw 606/94; K.P. Shastri and Naresh Kumar Shastri, the petitioners in Cwp 448/94 and Bimla Devi and Geeta Devi petitioners in Cwp 774/92 have been found not eligible for allotment. They have not been allotted any flats. They were not issued with any allotment letter. Their petitions are liable to be dismissed. As to Bimla Devi and Gita Devi petitioner in Cwp 774/92, it is stated on behalf of the Dda that in view of their ineligibility they had already been evicted from the flat which they were occupying Om Parkash, Parvati Devi, K.P. Shashtri and Naresh Kumar Shastri are in unauthorised occupation of Janta Flat Nos-461,428 and 471. They are liable to be evicted.
(28) Harbans Lal (CWP 74/94), Ajit Kumar Ghosh (CWP 888/92), Murari Lal (CWP 869/92), Inderjit (CWP 889/92) and Jaipal (CWP 870/92) have been allotted flats noted against their names in the chart para 8 of the judgment. They are willing to have those flats. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the delay in payment should not entail cessation of their entitlement to allotment. They should be allowed time for payment subject to adjustment of equities. As the time granted by the allotment letters for payment has expired, the respondent-DDA shall have to issue revised demand letters calculating the amount by adding interest consistently with the policy of the Dda for delayed payments.
(29) Jagdish Lal Sharma (CWP 2559/91) is in occupation of Flat No.58-B, Pocket B, Lig which has already stood allotted to Raghubir Singh (CWP 3362/90). Jagdish Lal has been allotted flat No.499 Pocket-C. The Dda should explore the possibility of shifting one of the two to another flat consistently with their choices. Though Jagdish Lal is not entitled to allotment of an Lig flat as of right, however, during the course of hearing, we have been told that looking the size of his family he cannot accommodate himself in a Janta Flat and his daughter is running a small ‘Silai School’ (imparting instructions in stitching clothes) in the flat which is presently in occupation of Shri Jagdish Lal. Keeping in view the background of the events and the fact that he has been in occupation of a Lig flat ever since May, 1990, the Dda should consider his case with sympathy and if Raghubir Singh is not agreeable to shift himself to another flat then Jagdish should be offered another Lig flat. The Dda should act with sympathy and compassion and should not feel biased or be obsessed with the legal battle fought by him. After all the whole story is a creation of fortuitous circumstances.
(30) Smt. Shanti Devi (CWP 601/94) is in occupation of Flat No.446 though she has been allotted flat No.448. Within a period of one month from the date of this judgment, the Dda shall examine if Smt.Shanti Devi can be accommodated in Flat No.446 in lieu of Flat No.448. If for any valid reason it may not be possible then Smt. Shanti Devi must vacate Flat No.446 and shift to Flat No.448.
(31) For all the foregoing reasons, the petitions are disposed of in accordance with the following directions :-
(I)CWP 605/94 0m Parkash Vs. DDA; Cwp 606/94 Parvati Devi VS. DDA; Cwp 448/94 K.P. Shastri and Naresh Klimar Shastri VS. DDA; and Cwp 774/92 Vimla Devi and Gita Devi Vs. Dda are dismissed.
— *** —
(II)CWP 74/94 Harbans Lal VS. DDA; Cwp 888/92 Ajit Kumar Ghosh VS. DDA; Cwp 869/92 Murari Lal VS. DDA; Cwp 889/92 Inderjit Vs DDA; and Cw 870/92 Jaipal VS. Dda are partly allowed and disposed of in accordance with the following directions :-
(A)within six weeks from today, the respondent-DDA shall calculate the amount due and payable by each of these petitioners in respect of the flats allotted to them and in their occupation by including interest for the delayed payments over and above the amount required to be paid by each of these petitioners in terms of the allotment-cum-demand letters issued on 30.9.91.
(B)from the date of delivery of the demand letters each of these petitioners may pay the amount demanded from him within a period of eight weeks and comply with the usual formalities whereupon lease deeds shall be executed by the Dda in favour .of these petitioners.
(C)If any of the petitioners fails to make the payment and comply with the usual formalities within the above said period of eight weeks, his entitlement to the flat shall cease and he shall be liable to be evicted.
(III)CWP 607/94 Smt.Shanti Devi VS. Dda is allowed in part and disposed of in terms of the following directions :-
(A)within four weeks from today the Dda shall examine if the petitioner can be accommodated in flat No.446 and if that be so, Flat No.446 shall be substituted in her allotment letter. If flat No.446 cannot be allotted to Shanti Devi for valid reasons, then she shall shift to Flat No.448 on being informed to do so.
(B)In either case the Dda shall issue a demand letter to the petitioner consistently with the same terms and conditions and time schedule as has been indicated in sub para (ii) above, which shall be binding on both the parties.
(IV)CWP 2558/91, Jagdish Lal Sharma VS. Dda is partly allowed and disposed of in terms of the following directions :-
DIRECTIONS
(A)Jagdish Lal Sharma, the petitioner in Cwp 2558/91 and Raghubir Singh, the applicant in Cm 4119/91 (in Cw 3362/90) are both directed to appear before Commissioner Housing, Dda, Vikas Sadan, New Delhi on 19.2.96 at 2.30 PM. The Dda shall before the appointed date as above said, find out if any Lig flat is vacant and available to be allotted to any of the two persons above said. On the date of hearing, the above said authority shall hear both the claimants and persuade one of them to accept the flat so made available.
(B)Any of the two claimants agreeing to have the flat so made available would be allotted that flat and the other one of them shall be entitled to flat No.58 pocket-B Hastsal Village.
(C)The terms and conditions of the allotment to Raghubir Singh shall remain the same on which he has already been allotted the flat. So far as Jagdish Lal Sharma is concerned, the price and the terms and conditions of the allotment of Lig flat shall be the same as would have been if the allotment was made on 30.9.91.
(D)To the flat allotted to Jagdish Lal Sharma other directions as contemplated by sub-para (ii) above shall apply, with this much modification that the periods limited thereby shall commence w.e.f. the date with which the identity of the flat to be made available to Jagdish Lal Sharma is finalised.
(V)If any of the petitioners has made any payment to the respondent-DDA, the challans thereof shall be made available by the petitioner to the Dda within two weeks from today. Credit for payments by reference of the date on which the amounts have been paid shall be allowed by the Dda to the respective petitioners.
(VI)Let the records of Cwp 605/94, 606/94, 448/94, 774/92, 74/94, 888/92, 869/92, 889/92 and 870/92 be consigned to record room.
(VII)CWPs 607/94, 2558/91 and Cm 4119/91 in Cw 3362/90 shall come up for further directions on 15.4.96.
(VIII)Costs as incurred, in all the petitions.