Mr. Arun Kumar, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an application seeking review of the judgmentdated 17. 12. 1991 disposing of the writ petition. ( 2 ). The Delhi Administration had framed a Scheme called large Scale Acquisition , Development and Disposal of Land in Delhi 1961. Under this Scheme thepersons whose lands were compulsorily acquired, were made entitled to allotmentof an alternative plot. One Kanwar Singh, grandfather of the petitioner was ownerof 57 bighas and 13 biswas of land in village Badli, Delhi. The land was notified foracquisition in the year 1961 when a notification under Section 4 of the Landacquisition Act was issued. Kanwar Singh died in the year 1975. The Award withrespect to the said land was made in the year 1981. Kanwar Singh had left behind twosons, namely, Ganga Ram and Prahlad Singh. Ganga Ram received compensationfor his share in the land belonging to Kanwar Singh. Thereafter Ganga Ram also diedon 14. 9. 1983. But before his death Ganga Ram had applied for allotment of aresidential plot under the aforesaid Scheme of the Delhi Administration. After thedeath of Ganga Ram, Rajinder Kumar, the petitioner herein pursued the saidapplication. Ultimately Rajinder Kumar filed the present writ petition in this Courtwhich was allowed vide judgment dated 17. 12. 1991. The respondents were directedto allot to the petitioner land measuring not more than 400 sq. yds. at a rate payableat the time when the father of the petitioner had applied for allotment of plot in 1982. ( 3 ). By the present application the respondents have sought review of the judgment dated 17. 12. 1991 on two grounds, namely, (A) that the petitioner is entitled to only half of the land which would havebeen allotted to Kanwar Singh because the petitioner represents thebranch of only one of the two sons of Kanwar Singh; (b) that in view of a subsequent Full Bench judgment of this Court thepetitioner is liable to pay the price of the land as applicable on the datewhen an offer is made to him by the DDA for allotment of a specific plot. ( 4 ). However, when notice of the application was issued to the petitioner in writpetition on 24. 2. 94, it was confined to the first ground. ( 4 ). However, when notice of the application was issued to the petitioner in writpetition on 24. 2. 94, it was confined to the first ground. This is so as the subsequentchange of law or any decision of a Court in some other case cannot affect thejudgment in the present case particularly when it has not been appealed against. Stress is thus only on the first ground. According to Mr. Mahajan if the owner of landdies after notification under Sec. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, all the legal heirstogether are entitled to one plot of the size to which the deceased would have beenentitled as per the Scheme. Kanwar Singh who was the recorded owner at the timeof notification under Sec. 4 left behind two sons, namely, Ganga Ram and Prahladsingh. The petitioner in the writ petition represents the branch of Ganga Ram alone. Therefore, he is entitled to only half of the size of the plot which would have beenallotted to Kanwar Singh. In other words it is submitted that on account of death ofthe recorded owner after Section 4 notification the heirs cannot have the advantageof allotment of plots as per number of heirs left behind. If the application forallotment of an alternative plot is jointly made by all the heirs, they will together getone plot. Otherwise the heirs will have to share the plot between themselves as perplot their respective shares in the acquired land. In the present case the deceased leftbehind two sons. Only one son made the application and his branch was before thecourt. He will be entitled to half of the plot which would have been allottable tokanwar Singh. ( 5 ). The main question for consideration is: For purposes of determination of theright to allotment of a plot under the Scheme what is the crucial stage? Is it the stagewhen notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act is issued notifying theland for acquisition for a public purpose or it is the date when the award is made?according to the learned Counsel for the applicant the right of a land owner qua hisacquired land are determined on the basis of the date of Notification under Section4 of the Land Acquisition Act. The compensation for the acquired land is paid on thebasis of the market value of the land on that date. The compensation for the acquired land is paid on thebasis of the market value of the land on that date. Further in view of the Delhi Land (Restrictions on Transfer) Act, 1972, there are restrictions on transfer of lands whichare notified under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. Section 4 notificationfreezes the land for all purposes. Secondly, it is submitted that death of the recordedowner on the date of the notification under Section 4 cannot result in conferring anyextra benefit on the heirs of the owner. It cannot be that if a landowner entitled toa plot dies leaving behind more than one heirs, each heir will get an independentright to a plot under the Scheme. The learned Counsel for the applicant has relied ona judgment of the Supreme Court in C. As. 97 and 98/1992 Shiv Nath Sharma v Unionof India decided on 27. 1. 1994 in support of his contention. In this case the appellanthad purchased a portion of the acquired land from his father under a registereddeed. On the basis of the purchase he applied for allotment of an industrial plot. Theappellant had purchased the land after the acquisition was complete, i. e. even theaward had been made. There were several co-sharers alongwith the father of theappellant. The father of the appellant had died in the meanwhile and the appellantclaimed also as heir to his father. The claim of the appellant was negatived. It wasnoted that when there were several claimants to a plot one of the co-sharers alonecould not be held entitled to the plot in the absence of the other co-sharers. Furtherthe Court noted that the Scheme did not envisage allotment of plots to each one prorata to land acquired. It contemplates only allotment of one plot to the owner whoseland was acquired. ( 6 ). The learned Counsel for the writ petitioner/non-applicant argued that theright to allotment of alternative plot has to be determined on the basis of date of theaward. Since the father of the petitioner, namely, Ganga Ram received thecompensation for his share of the land and he alone had applied for allotment ofalternative plot, his son, the present petitioner should be allotted a full size plot. Hehas relied on a Full Bench judgment of this Court in Shiv Devi v. Lt. Governor, 1986r. L. R. 557. Since the father of the petitioner, namely, Ganga Ram received thecompensation for his share of the land and he alone had applied for allotment ofalternative plot, his son, the present petitioner should be allotted a full size plot. Hehas relied on a Full Bench judgment of this Court in Shiv Devi v. Lt. Governor, 1986r. L. R. 557. This judgment of the Full Bench was also relied upon on behalf of theappella t in the aforementioned case before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Courtdid not follow the same. Moreover, we feel that the reasoning contained in thejudgment of the Supreme Court squarely deals with the point in controversy. Thefull Bench judgment does not deal with some of the points urged before us. Therefore, we prefer to follow the Supreme Court judgment cited by the learnedcounsel for the applicant. ( 7 ). The object of the Scheme appears to be to alleviate the condition of an ownerof land whose land is acquired. To rehabilitate him it was considered just and properto allot him a suitable residential of industrial plot. The right to apply under thescheme is given to the owner whose land is notified for acquisition. The transfereesof land after the notification under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act do not get anyindependent right. Moreover, transfers are restricted under the Delhi Lands (Restrictions on Transfer) Act, 1972. However, in case of death of the owner, his heirsonly step into his shoes and are entitled to only what the owner, if alive, would havebeen entitled to. The heirs cannot have more. The right to compensation for the acquired land as also the entitlement to allotment of alternative plot are to bedetermined on the basis of what the owner, if alive, would have got. Any otherinterpretation would lead to absurd results. If the recorded owner on the date ofsection 4 notification leaves behind ten heirs, will each get a separate plot of the samesize as the owner would have got, if alive? The answer has to be in the negative. ( 8 ). It is also relevant to note here that the right to allotment of alternative plotwas in a sense personal to the owner. This is so because the allotment is notautomatic. It is subject to certain conditions, one being that he should not have anyother residential house or plot. The answer has to be in the negative. ( 8 ). It is also relevant to note here that the right to allotment of alternative plotwas in a sense personal to the owner. This is so because the allotment is notautomatic. It is subject to certain conditions, one being that he should not have anyother residential house or plot. Suppose an owner who apart from the land underacquisition owned a residential plot. In order to take advantage of allotment ofalternative plot, he may transfer the land under acquisition to another who may not be owning any residential plot. Can this be permitted? Obviously not. The Schemeof allotment of alternative plot is only a measure to relieve the owner of the hardshipresulting from acquisition of his land which may often include residential house. The Scheme is rehablitative and not intended to confer extra gains. Therefore, theright of the heirs of a deceased owner cannot be better than the right of theirpredecessor. The result is that the review application is partly accepted and it is held thatthe writ petitioner will be entitled to allotment of only half of the size of plot whichwould have been allotted to Kanwar Singh, if he had been alive which means thatin any case of the petitioner will not be entitled to a plot of a size more than 200 sq. yds. No costs.