JUDGMENT : I.A. No. 35\96 1. The Interlocutory Application is allowed to be withdrawn. I.A. No. 36 of 1996 2. This application is filed by respondent no. 4, son of Shri Tejwant Singh. The request is that since respondent nos. 1,2, and 4 have not been able to raise a sum of Rs. I0,crores for being deposited in this Court as directed by this Court, the only course available is to sell the property at No. 3 Aurangazeb Road by public auction. The applicant says that according to his estimate the value of the land comprised in the said property is in the region of Rs. 35 Crores. The value of building is in addition to the said value. The request is that before the property is actually sold, it must be got valued by an independent valuer so that it may assist the Court in accepting the bids that may be received l 3. For this purpose, we direct the applicant to deposit a sum of Rs. 20,000/- on or before 20th July, 1996. List this application on 22nd July, 1996. Meanwhile, Shri Jaitley says that D.D.A. also will value this property and submit its estimate of valuation to this Court. The estimate shall be submitted in a sealed cover and shall not be disclosed to anyone pending further orders of the Court. It is also open to the applicant to submit his own valuation in a sealed cover. I.A. No. 37 of 1996. 4. This application is filed by Shri Bijoyananda Patnaik Biju Patnaik for certain directions. The dispute between Shri Biju Patnaik and Tejwant Singh-or the companies represented by Shri Tejwant Singh- are matters outside the purview of the present proceedings. Those disputes can be fought out by Shri Biju Patnaik and Tejwant Singh in an appropriate forum. Indeed it appears that a suit is already pending. So far as the dispute relating to property taxes is concerned that is again a dispute between Shri Biju Patnaik and Tejwant Singh (and the companies represented by the latter) and the Municipal Corporation as to who is responsible and to what extent. That is equally a matter outside the purview of the present proceedings. So far as the dispute relating to property taxes is concerned that is again a dispute between Shri Biju Patnaik and Tejwant Singh (and the companies represented by the latter) and the Municipal Corporation as to who is responsible and to what extent. That is equally a matter outside the purview of the present proceedings. The only aspect upon which applicant herein can claim to be heard is that as and when the property at No. 3 Aurangazeb Road is notified for sale by auction or otherwise he may be present to ensure that the property sold by him to Tejwant Singh (or to the companies represented by him) alone is notified for sale and not the portion, which, he says, has b been retained by him. On that occasion all the parties will be heard and appropriate orders passed. 5. With this observation the I.A. is disposed of. 6. So far as the deposit of rent by the Embassy of Israel in India, which is a tenant of No. 3 Aurangazeb Road is concerned, it appears that though the Registry had sent the Order of this Court dated 6.5.96 on 8th May. 1996, there is no response from Embassy. A letter of request shall be sent to the Embassy of Israel in terms of the said order today itself, 7. The D.D.A. shall also intimate this Court of their response and the action taken by them in furtherance of the recommendations made by Justice Chinnappa Reddy Commission Report to ensure effective functioning of D.D.A. and to avoid similar situations in future. 8. No orders on I.As. for impleadment. List pending IAS along with I.A. 36/96 on 22.7.1996.