I. P. VASISHTH, J. The petitioner prays for a writ ofmandanus commanding upon the opposite parties to allot him a residential house in Bareilly on priority basis in view of his 1980 registration. 2. In 1979 the petitioner was a Com batant Flight Lieutenant in the Indian Air Force. In response to a residential scheme floated by the respondents he got himself registered in the defence quota for allot ment of a plot at Bareilly. Later on he got it controverted for a HIG house. On deposit ing the requisite fee amounting to Rs. 7000/- he was allotted registration No. ER/h 80 per Annexure 1 attached with the petition. At the relevant time he was serv ing in forward areas with squadron 2201 and his address was C/o 56 APO for the obvious reasons he could not disclose the location of the squadron and so the cor respondence was made through his aforesaid squadron which, as a matter of fact, was based in the Run of Kutch. In mid 1983 he was transferred from there to squadron 2315 based in another forward area (Punjab ). This transfer had to take effect from early December, 1983. During the interregnum when the petitioner was still attached with his earlier squadron based in Kutch, he got in touch with respondents and vide his letter Annexure 2 dated 7-11-1983, requested for change of his address as follows:- "fltlt. C. L. Anand, 2215 Sqdn. A. P. C/056apo. " As the petitioner had not yet moved out of the earlier squadron, therefore, in reply to the respondents query dated 31-10-1983 he sent his consent letter dated 9-11-1993 contained in CA-A-II from there. However, during his joining time, he personally came down to Bareilly in November, 1993 itself and went to the respondents office to ensure the correct recording of his changed address. They gave him the indulgence and that was how that the address was changed by the petitioner himself in the relevant Registration Book kept by the respon dents. But to his utter surprise and dismay, they did not send him any allotment letter at his correct address. At a later stage he came to know that house No. C-18 was allotted to him in the draw of lots on 16-11-1993 and an allotment letter dated 9-12-1983 was dispatched at his previous ad dress. 3. But to his utter surprise and dismay, they did not send him any allotment letter at his correct address. At a later stage he came to know that house No. C-18 was allotted to him in the draw of lots on 16-11-1993 and an allotment letter dated 9-12-1983 was dispatched at his previous ad dress. 3. For the obvious reasons he could not acknowledge any such allotment and thus the respondents cancelled the allot ment order on 29-5-1984 vide letter An nexure E (supplementary counter- af fidavit ). Since the petitioner had not received this allotment order and the can cellation had also been done without hear ing him, therefore, he protested to the respondents by sending his letter dated 13-7-1984 contained in Annexure E-4. But keeping in view the Defence traditional discipline and dignity, he did not unduly stretch the matter and requested for an alternative allotment of a particular plot situated in Yojna No. 2. In the same se quence on 12-11-1984 from the office of estate Officer of the respondents he ob tained true copy, contained in Annexure 3, of the aforesaid allotment order dated 9-12-1983. 4. The petitioners grievance was that house No. C-18 which was allotted to him from the defence quota was wrongly and illegally withdrawn by the respondents to accommodate and oblige some influential Person and that was the reason that despite is persistent correspondence from his post, both directly as well as through his command authorities, all proved futile. Ultimately on taking some leave from the service, he came down to Bareilly and per sonally discussed the issue with the then Commissioner, Avas Evam Vikas Parishad. The senior authorities were found reasonable and understanding and that was how that they offered him an alternative accommodation provided he got himself registered afresh. 5. The petitioners version was that since his registration was cancelled wrong ly, therefore, there was no need for him to obtain fresh registration. During this exer cise he came to know about the availability of a MIG house bearing No. B-47 with the respondents. He, therefore, requested for its allotment to him. 5. The petitioners version was that since his registration was cancelled wrong ly, therefore, there was no need for him to obtain fresh registration. During this exer cise he came to know about the availability of a MIG house bearing No. B-47 with the respondents. He, therefore, requested for its allotment to him. Simultaneously on his letter contained in Annexure 13, the then Commissioner Sri Atul Gupta called for an office report about the mistake com mitted in sending the orders of allotment and cancellation at his previous address which had since been changed by him prior , to the incidence of allotment itself. 6. But nothing concerate emerged out of the correspondence, or discussion etc. so he made a representation to the then Chief Minister, Uttar Pradesh in July, 1992 vide Annexure 18 requesting for the allotment of House No. B-47 to him in the High Court of the aforesaid develop ments. This representation was followed by another representation dated 24-7-1992 contained in Annexure 5 attached with the supplementary counter-affidavit. On examining the entire issue the Chief Minister directed the respondents for taking appropriate necessary action. In view thereof the respondents called upon the petitioner to obtain and submit his incomes certificates. He duty complied with their demand by submitting income cartificate contained in Annexure B-l of the rejoinier affidavit. But once again the respondents took evasive stand by insist ing upon fresh registration. They also con tended that House No. B-47 could not be allotted to him as it was being used for official purpose and the only permissible mode of its allotment could be by way of public auction. 7. Forced by the circumstances, the petitioner brought the instant writ peti tion for the appropriate relief as indicated hereinabove. 8. They also con tended that House No. B-47 could not be allotted to him as it was being used for official purpose and the only permissible mode of its allotment could be by way of public auction. 7. Forced by the circumstances, the petitioner brought the instant writ peti tion for the appropriate relief as indicated hereinabove. 8. Resisting the proceedings the respondents took the stand that even though the petitioner was initially registered for allotment of a plot in Bareilly City Scheme, yet he was allowed to change his option in the year 1982 and registered at serial No. ER/h-80 for allot ment of a HIG house, but the contention was that the allotment order which was passed in petitioners favour as a result of his success in the draw of lots was in timated to him at his correct address relat ing to 2201 Squadron, Air Force C/o 56 A. P. O. from where the petitioner had ac knowledged the offer and sent his consent letter dated 9-11-1983. It was explained that since the petitioner neither acknow ledge the allotment letter nor complied with its terms, therefore, the cancellation letter dated 29-5-1984 contained in An nexure E attached with supplementary counter-affidavit was rightly issued by them and despatched to the petitioner at his earlier address which was the only ad dress available with them till then. 9. Denying any foul play in the cancel lation of his allotment of House No. C-18 and its subsequent allotment to an alleged ly influential persons, the respondents submitted that the allotment is of course made by draw of lots, but a waiting list is always prepared and those of the allot ments which are subsequently cancelled for one or the other good reason are of fered to the persons standing in queue in the waiting list the same procedure was followed in this case also. 10. Later correspondence between the parties directly as well as through the then Chief Minister was not disowned. It was also not contested that certain in quiries were made into the grouse of the petitioner about the dispatch of the allot ment and cancellation letters at the wrong address, but it was denied that there was any error on their part. Later correspondence between the parties directly as well as through the then Chief Minister was not disowned. It was also not contested that certain in quiries were made into the grouse of the petitioner about the dispatch of the allot ment and cancellation letters at the wrong address, but it was denied that there was any error on their part. All the same to show their maganimity towards a serving defence personnel, the respondents had agreed to accommodate him at an alterna tive place provided he was wiling to abide by the requisite formalities including fresh registration which, for the reason better known to him, he always avoided. 11. It may also be worthwhile to note that during the pendency of the proceed ings, the petitioner retired from Air Force which he had served for quite a long time. 12. On a careful scrutiny of the entire material on records and hearing the par ties, we are inclined to sustain the petitioners cause because on the crucial aspect of the issue revolving around com munication of the allotment order dated 16-11-1983 and its cancellation vide order dated 28/29-5- 1994, he appears to have a genuine grouse that they were neither sent at his proper address nor received by him either directly or through any other chan nel. There is no gain saying that he was a registered applicant of the defence quota for allotment, of a HIG house in the residential colony floated for Bareilly City by the respondents, and was picked up as a prospective allottee in the draw of lots. So obviously the offer had to go to him at his registered address of course at the time of registration he was attached with Squ. No. 2201 C/o 56 APO but being a combatant defence personnel serving in the forward area, he could not possibly disclose the location of his Unit. From the clearance cartificate contained in Annexure S. R. A. 1, attached with the supplementary rejoinder affidavit, it is abundantly clear that during those days he was under trans fer orders to squadron No. 2215 which again was based in another forward area. From the clearance cartificate contained in Annexure S. R. A. 1, attached with the supplementary rejoinder affidavit, it is abundantly clear that during those days he was under trans fer orders to squadron No. 2215 which again was based in another forward area. In view of the exigencies of service, he could not disclose all these details to the respondents, but all the same after receiv ing an intimation regarding the result of draw of lots and sending his consent vide letter dated 9-11-1983 contained in An nexure Cl, he lost no time in informing the respondents about the change of address consequent upon his attachment with a new squadron i. e. sqdn. No. 2215 based in another forward area. 13. To be precise, during his joining time sometimes in late November or early December, 1983, he personally came down to Bareilly, went to their office and got incorporated his latest address where all future communication had to be sent. The specific plea raised to this effect in paras No. 3 and 4 of the petition was not con troverted leading to the natural inference of its admission, but still to ensure ac curacy of the propagation, we called for the Registration Book being retained by the respondents in their office. It was ex amined in the presence of the parties and found to contain the petitioners new address of sqdn. No. 2215 C/o 56 APO. 14. It hardly requires any emphasis that the actual allotment in the instant case was made in mid- December 1993 as would be evident from the dated incor porated as the top corner of the relevant allotment order contained in Annexure 3, perusal thereof would also show that the draw of lots was held on 16-11-1983, but the order of allotment was issued only on 9-12-1983. The second aspect is that the petitioners consent on Annexure C-l, at tached with the supplementary counter-affidavit, was obtained on 9-11-1983 (even before the draw of lots) per their reference dated 31-10-1983. To put it in plain words, the correspondent relating to the consent had been completed much before the draw of lots. There is no explanation from the respondents side for the basis of their as sumption that the petitioner would suc ceed in the draw of lots. To put it in plain words, the correspondent relating to the consent had been completed much before the draw of lots. There is no explanation from the respondents side for the basis of their as sumption that the petitioner would suc ceed in the draw of lots. It also remains to be explained as to what was the occasion to obtain his consent when he had already been registered as one of the aspirants that residential colony. 15. Be that as it may, the allotment letter contained in Annexure 3 was pur ported to have been despatched to the petitioner on 9-12-1983 at his old address of Sqn. No. 2201 (Run of Kutch) despite the fact that the Registration Book had already been updated with the latest ad dress of Sqn. No. 2215 based in an entirely different part of the country (Punjab ). A back reference to the aforesaid clearance certificates, Annexure S. R. A. 1, attached with the supplementary rejoinder af fidavit, would affirm that the petitioner was required to join at his new squadron on 5-2-1983 in compliance to the transfer order dated 16-7-1983. During his service tenure, he could not possibly show this document to the respondents, last their should be any unwarranted exposure of the defence attachments but it is no longer "classified" in view of his retirement and forms an innocuous part of his service record on having been issued from the accounts department of the Air Force. Moreover, there is no dispute about its authenticity. 16. Against the aforesaid back drop one may not possible resist the inference that the petitioner was no longer serving with sqdn. No. 2201 when the allotment order was purportedly issued or sent to him despite the fact that he had already intimated the respondents about the change of the address to Sqdn. No. 2215. Similarly the cancellation order dated 28/29-5-1984 contained in Annexure-E at tached with supplementary counter-af fidavit it was also sent at his previous ad dress which was no more operative. So the question of their receipt by the petitioner did not arise at all. It may not be out of context to mention here that neither of these letters was sent by registered post or under postal certificate and there is noth ing before the court to infer their receipt at, or redirection by the authorities of Sqdn. So the question of their receipt by the petitioner did not arise at all. It may not be out of context to mention here that neither of these letters was sent by registered post or under postal certificate and there is noth ing before the court to infer their receipt at, or redirection by the authorities of Sqdn. No. 2201 to the petitioner at his new address. It is a bit intriguing to note that such important communications which could have far reaching bearing on the civil rights of a serving defence personnel, would be sent to him by ordinary post. 17. The cancellation order suffers from yet another flaw inasmuch as under Regulation 36 of the Registration and Al lotment of Residential Plots and Houses Regulation, 1979 framed under U. R Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 (Regulation for the short) the respondents were obliged to issue a fifteen days notice to the petitioner before cancelling the al lotment order, but no such procedure was followed in this case. On their behalf reliance was placed on one of the stipula tions contained in the allotment order that it couid be cancelled for non-payment of the dues within one/three months without any prior notice. But the endeavour is mis conceived ; primarily because the allot ment order itself was never received by the petitioner so as to fasten him with the liability of knowledge of this clause and otherwise too, it could not have an overrid ing effect on the statutory Regulation indi cated hereinabove. It is besides the point that the stipulation was vague because it did not specify whether the amount had to be paid within one month or three months. 18. This court is fully conscious that the petitioner has not prayed for quashing the cancellation of allotment of HIG House No C-18 achieved by him in the year 1983 in view of his success in draw of lots, but his grievance was that it was done with a purpose to accommodate an influential person. Since this subsequent allottee is not a party to the proceedings, therefore, we would refrain from going in for an indepth analysis of the validity of such subsequent allotment. But suffice to note that he was one gentleman bearing the name of Ramesh Chandra Khanna. Since this subsequent allottee is not a party to the proceedings, therefore, we would refrain from going in for an indepth analysis of the validity of such subsequent allotment. But suffice to note that he was one gentleman bearing the name of Ramesh Chandra Khanna. He was a civilian, a non-defence personnel, and happened to be relative of the Minister Sri Ram Singh Khanna as would be evident from the list of allottees contained in respondents own documents Annexures F and G; attached with their counter- af fidavit ; the relationship aspect is revealed in para No. 3 (VI) of the supplementary rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioner. 19. Under Regulation 32 four per cent quota is reserved for defence person nel in all such allotments. It is little baffling as to how a civilian was accommodated in the defence quota. A valiant effort was made to explain that even though the ini tial draw of lots was quota-wise; yet there was no such restriction at the time of preparing the waiting list. We are of the considered opinion that Regulations 32 and 34 have to be read together and given a harmonious interpretation. Once a precise percentage of plots is reserved for a particular category, the waiting list has also to be prepared in a manner that there is no intrusion of the general category aspirants into the reserved category; un less of course no eligible person is avail able in the waiting list of the reserved category or there is a specific rule to permit it. But in this case, no quota-wise waiting list was ever prepared and there in no rule or regulation which could warrant this deviation. 20. Thus, in the totality of the cir cumstances, we have no hesitation in con cluding that the petitioner was never in formed about the allotment of House No. C18 despite his success in draw of lots, and since the information was not sent to him, therefore, its subsequent cancellation vide order dated 28/29-5- 1984 was also bad in the eye of law. 21. 21. The later part of the correspon dence between the parties and the petitioners own supporting withdrawal from the controversy centering around the allotment of House No. C-18 boils down to the limited point as to whether the petitioner should have got himself registered afresh for further allotment or he should be accorded the benefit of his earlier registration. There was lengthy cor respondence and even personal meeting between the petitioner and the senior authorities of the respondents parishad. From the letters and endorsements recorded on Annexure H (attached with the supplementary counter-affidavit) dated 13-7-84 and Annexure P attached with the counter-affidavit, it is abundantly clear that the respondents did conduct a sort of departmental enquiry with view to fix responsibility on the concerned official dealing with the issue of allotments and cancellation, but still they refused to budge from their stand regarding the petitioners necessity to get a fresh registration. It ap pears that at a later stage, intervention of the then Chief Minister had some sobering effect on the respondents and so a detailed enquiry was initiated in April, 1992 as would be evident from the various endorsements forming part of Annexure R at tached with the supplementary counter-affidavit. On petitioners letter Annexure Y dated 24-7-1992, the then Chief Ministers Secretariat ordered further en quiry. It was followed by correspondence contained in Annexures W and X forming part of the same counter-affidavit. 22. An order was ultimately passed on 10-8-1992 that keeping in view the en tire back ground of the case, House No. MIG 47 be not put to public auction and that it be allotted to the petitioner on complying with captain formalities (An nexure X to the supplementary counter-affidavit ). It was only thereafter that respondents asked the petitioner to fur nish his income certificate and when he complied even with that requirement they again started harping on the old tech nicalities and called for his fresh registra tion. 23. It would thus be evident that without any justifiable reason, the respon dents were driving the petitioner towards unwarranted litigation. It was at quite a belated stage that in compliance to an interim order dated 4-9-1995 read with order dated 8-5-1995 passed by this court that they dispensed with the requirement of fresh registration and allotted him House No. B- 47. It was at quite a belated stage that in compliance to an interim order dated 4-9-1995 read with order dated 8-5-1995 passed by this court that they dispensed with the requirement of fresh registration and allotted him House No. B- 47. But it appears that they would not like him to live in peace and that was how that in the new allotment order contained in Annexure C. A. 1, demanded from him the cost of the house according to the latest price prevalent in the year 1996. It goes without saying that there has been a sea change in the land prices since 1983 when the petitioner first became en titled for allotment of a HIG type house but was wrongfully deprived by a patently unjust and illegal order. To rub salt into his wounds, the respondents also demanded of him interest on the costs of the construc tion of the house raised sometimes in the year 1983-84. It was also urged that this house was built on a corner plot which they had enclosed by a boundary wall and so he was liable to pay the cost of the boundary wall as well, besides 10% on account of its being a preferential plot. So far so good, but the demand of interest even on the cost of this boundary wall certainly took much. After all the house had all throughout been in the use and occupation of the respondents themselves. It was never of fered to him and he never declined to accept it. There was no such lapse on his part which could invite the interest liability. 24. The respondents completely failed to appreciate the petitioners con duct in foregoing his right to a better type of hosue which he had legitimately earned in the draw of lots in 1983. He could insist upon it and that would have created a lot of problems for the respondents on implead-ing the subsequent allottee to these proceedings. Otherwise also, if he were to be given an alternative allotment in lieu of his 1983 rights his responsibility for pay ment of cost would have remained limited only at that particular price level which was prevalent in those days. Moreover, had he been given his due in the year 1983, he could have availed of the facility of paying the cost of the house in monthly/annual instalments. Moreover, had he been given his due in the year 1983, he could have availed of the facility of paying the cost of the house in monthly/annual instalments. Petitioners urge to steer clear of all the controversies promoted him to pray for the allotment of House No. B-47 of a lower category, on quashing the respondents letters and orders contained in Annexures 15, 16 and 21 respectively dated 18-7-92,3-8-92 and 12-8-92; mean ing thereby his willingness to pay the price at the level of theyear 1992. 25. Hence for the reasons recorded above, we allow the petition with costs and on setting aside the aforesaid orders modify the allotment order dated 23-5-1996 contained in Annexure CA 2 passed by the respondents during the pendency of these proceedings. To do substantial jus tice between the parties, we issue a man damus in petitioners favour commanding upon the respondents to allot him House No. B-47 covering an area of 243. 3 meters including open land situated in Ijjat Nag ger Yojna No. 2 Bareilly. For this house the petitioner would pay the land price prevalent in August 1992 in addition to the actual cost of construction of the house and the boundary wall. The land price would, of course, include 10% extra on account of its being a corner plot, but no amount of interest on any account would be charged. The respondents would supply accurate statement of this amount to the petitioner within a week from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. In case the petitioner deposits 50% of the said amount within eight weeks from the receipt of this assessed figure, they would hand over the possession of the house to him in the following six weeks. The balance amount shall be paid by him at the time of taking over the possession. 26. The possession of the house will be given to the petitioner after getting it properly repaired, whitewashed and painted at respondents own cost bearing in mind the same quality and specifications which are normally observed by them while handing over the possession of the newly constructed houses to other usual allottees. Petition allowed. .