K. S. Gupta ( 1 ) IN this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitutionof India case of the petitioners is that in the year 1982, Director of Industries,respondent No. 2, acting on behalf of Delhi Administration, issued an advertisement inviting applications from eligible persons for allotment of 177 industrialplots (80 plots of 400 sq. yards. , 82 plots of 300 sq. yards and 65 plots of 250 sq. yards) in the Industrial Estate proposed to be developed at Okhla, New Delhi. Approximately 30,000 applications were received and out of them after scrutinyabout 13,000 applicants were found eligible. After short listing the number ofeligible applicants was reduced to approximately 3,000. Allotments of plotswere proposed to be made by draw of lots. In the draw of lots held in the monthof June, 1983, 177 eligible applicants were selected which also included thepetitioners. They were allotted specific plots @ Rs. 245. 00 per square yard. Unfortunately the plots allotted to the petitioners were undeveloped andheavily encroached upon by Jhuggi dwellers at the time of allotment with theresult that possession thereof could not be delivered to them. On 24/06/1933petitioners were informed in writing that the possession of the plots were notbeing handed over to them. It is further alleged that 50% sale price which wasdeposited through Bank drafts by the petitioners with respondent No. 3 wasreturned to them. Earnest money of Rs. 2,000. 00 deposited by them was,however, retained by respondent No. 3 and the petitioners right to receiveplot (s) when fully developed was kept intact. ( 2 ) AFTER waiting for over 12 years the petitioners were intimated by letterdated 21/04/1993 by respondent No. 3 that a draw of lots for allotment ofplots would be held on 29/04/1993. In that draw of lots the petitioners wereallotted specific plots as detailed in Annexure PI in the Functional Industrialestate for Electronics. Okhia Phase-11, New Delhi. As against the rate of Rs. 245 /- per sq. yard, on which allotment was made in 1983, the petitioners wereoffered plots @ Rs. 930. 00 per sq. yard. They were called upon to send theiracceptance within ten days of the issued of letter (s) and to deposit the totalamount of premium within a period of 90 days through Bankdraft (s) infavourof respondent No. 3. Petitioners accepted the offer and deposited the entirepremium as demanded through pay order (s) within the stipulated period. 930. 00 per sq. yard. They were called upon to send theiracceptance within ten days of the issued of letter (s) and to deposit the totalamount of premium within a period of 90 days through Bankdraft (s) infavourof respondent No. 3. Petitioners accepted the offer and deposited the entirepremium as demanded through pay order (s) within the stipulated period. ( 3 ) IT is further alleged that after deposit of the entire premium amountpetitioners 1 to 8 received letters from respondent No. 3 enclosing therewithcopies of the lease-deed in quadruplicate for the purposes of stamping andregistration. Petitioners 1 to 8 were called upon to return the lease-deeds dulystamped by the Collector of Stamps. Despite repeated letters petitioners 9 to 11were not provided with the lease-deeds for the purposes of payment of stampduty and registration. Petitioners 1 to 8 deposited the stamp duty with thecollector of Stamps, got the perpetual lease-deeds stamped from the Collectorof Stamps and thereafter submitted them with respondent No. 3. Conveyancefee @ Rs. 32. 00 per lease-deed was also deposited by the petitioners. Inspite ofthe fact that specific plots stand allotted to the petitioners, they having paidthe entire premium, petitioners 1 to 8 having paid the requisite stamp duty etc. and petitioners 9 to 11 being ready and willing to pay the stamp duty and toget the perpetual lease-deeds registered in their names, respondents 1 to 3 havenot taken any steps to deliver the vacant physical possession of the plotsallotted to the petitioners. ( 4 ) INFORMATION disclosed in Annexure PI is indicated by the table give ( 5 ) IT is prayed that by issue of a writ of mandamus respondents be directedto deliver the vacant physical possession of the plots allotted to the petitionersin Functional Industrial Estate for Electronics, Okhla Phase-11, New Delhi andto execute perpetual sub-leases in their favour of the petitioners in respect of theplots allotted to them. ( 6 ) GOVERNMENT of NCT of Delhi, Director of Industries, Commissioner ofindustries, Lt. Governor and DDA have been impleaded as respondents. On 13/01/1997 respondents 1 to 3 were allowed four weeks further time byway of last opportunity to file the reply and the case was postponed to 4/03/1997. Neither reply was filed nor anyone put in appearance for respondentsi to 3 on that date. Respondent No. 5 has not chosen to file any reply. ( 7 ) CONTENTION advanced by Mr. On 13/01/1997 respondents 1 to 3 were allowed four weeks further time byway of last opportunity to file the reply and the case was postponed to 4/03/1997. Neither reply was filed nor anyone put in appearance for respondentsi to 3 on that date. Respondent No. 5 has not chosen to file any reply. ( 7 ) CONTENTION advanced by Mr. P. Nandrajog appearing for the petitioners. was that petitioners case is squarley covered by as decision of a Divison Benchof this Court in C. W. No. 3170/95 titled as Brijiesh Chandra Sharma v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors. decided on 1/07/1996 and the petiktion deserveds to beallowed. ( 8 ) AN notied above out of 177 persons, who were foudn eligible underteh Scheme, vancnt pysical possessions of the plots could be handed over onlyto 101 persons. 76 plots were either found undeveloped or heavily encroachedupon by the Jhuggi dewellers at the time of allotment in 1983. Left out 76 persowere therafter allottted specific plots in the draw of lots held on 29/04/1993,by the decision Brijesh Chandra Sharma s case (supra),a batch ofwrit petitonswas disposed of. Petitioners in those writ petitons were amongest 76 left out\persons whom plots were alloted in the draw held on 29/04/1993 and bywhom the demanded amount of the premium was paid within the stipultate perod. Obvilulsy the of the present petitoer is didenticla tho thepetitioners in aforesaid CWP No. 3170/95 on law and facts. petktiotra aarem,therfore, enttitled to the same reloef which was granted to the petioners by thedecisions in Brijesh Chandra Srhrm s case (supr ). ( 9 ) THE petitioner aclcordingly is allowed bu withou tnay ordr as to costs. Respondets 1 to 3 are directe to excute to requistie lease deeds so as tomateralose the allotemnts of plots made to the poetitoners. If any inidetalfromality is required to the fulfilled by any of ethe petitioners, the same shall be duly complioed with by them within a perod of four weeks from the date ofreciept of intimation in thisregard from respondts 2 and3 Respondts 2 73\are directed oto commence the fooo,ew up action within a perod of four weeksfrom the date of recipt of rwrit order from this Court. In all eventuatl9tw theexecution of the leases-deeds and edelivery of peossession shall be completedwithin a perod of theree months from the dated of reciopt of wirht order from this court. In all eventuatl9tw theexecution of the leases-deeds and edelivery of peossession shall be completedwithin a perod of theree months from the dated of reciopt of wirht order from this court. It will however, be open to resoponts 1 to 3 to scrutinise and verify if by occurrebnce of any subsequent event any of the petitioers has ceased to entitled or become disentitle d for allotemnt of plot under the Scheme.