K. S. Gupta ( 1 ) IN this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofindia the petitioners case is that in the year 1982, Director of lndustries,respondentno. 2, acting on behalf of the Delhi Administration, issued an advertisementinviting applications from eligible persons for allotment of 177 industrial plots (80plots of 400 sq. yards, 82 plots of 300 sq. yards and 65 plots of 250 sq. yards) in anindustrial Estate proposed to be developed at Okhla, New Delhi. Approximately30,000 applications were received and out of them after scrutiny about 13,000applicants were found eligible. After short listing the number of eligible applicantswas reduced to approximately 3,000 and the allotments of 177 plots were proposedto be made by draw of lots. In the draw of lots held in the month of June, 1983,177eligible applicants were selected which also included the petitioners. They wereallotted respective plots @ Rs. 245. 00 per sq. yard. Unfortunately the plots allottedto the petitioners were undeveloped and heavily encroached upon by Jhuggidwellers at the time of allotment with the result that possession thereof could notbe delivered to them. On 24/06/1983 petitioners were informed inwriting thatthe possession of plots allotted to them were not being handed over to them. It isfurther alleged that 50% sale price which was deposited through bank drafts bythe petitioners with respondent No. 3 was returned. The earnest money in the sumof Rs. 2,000. 00 deposited by each of the petitioners was, however, retained byrespondent No. 3 and the petitioners right to receive plot (s) when fully developedwas kept intact. ( 2 ) AFTER waiting for over 12 years the petitioners were intimated vide letterdated 27/04/1993 by respondent No. 3 that a draw of lots for allotment of specificplots 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 Industrial Estatefor Electronics, Okhia Phase-11, New Delhi. As against the rate of Rs. 245. 00 per sq. yard, on which rate allotment was made in 1983, the petitioners were offered plots@rs. 930. 00 per sq. yard. The petitioners were called upon to send their acceptancewithin ten days of the issue of letters and to deposit the total amount of premiumwithin a period of 90 days through bank draft (s) in favour of respondent No. 3. yard, on which rate allotment was made in 1983, the petitioners were offered plots@rs. 930. 00 per sq. yard. The petitioners were called upon to send their acceptancewithin ten days of the issue of letters and to deposit the total amount of premiumwithin a period of 90 days through bank draft (s) in favour of respondent No. 3. Petitioners accepted the offer and within the stipulated period deposited the entirepremium as demanded through pay order (s ). ( 3 ) IT is further alleged that after deposit of the entire premium amountpetitioners 1 and3 received letters from respondent No. 3 enclosing therewith copies of the lease-deed in quadruplicate for the purposes of stamping and registration. Petitioners 1 and 3 were called upon to return the lease deed duly stamped by thecollector of Stamps. Despite repeated letters petitioners 2,4 and 5 were not providedwith the copies of the lease-deeds for the purposes of payment of stamp duty andregistration. Petitioners 1 and 3 deposited the stamp duty with the Collector ofstamps, got the perpetual lease-deeds stamped from the Collector of Stamps andsubmitted them with respondent No. 3. Conveyance fee @ Rs. 32. 00 per lease-deedwas also deposited by the petitioners. Inspite of the fact that specific plots standallotted to the petitioners, they having paid the entire premium, petitioners 1 and 3having paid the requisite stamp duty etc. and petitioners 2,4 and 5 being ready andwilling to pay the stamp duty and to get the perpetual lease deeds registered intheir names, respondents 1 to 3 have not taken any steps to deliver the vacantphysical possession of the plots allotted to the petitioners. ( 4 ) INFORMATION disclosed in Annexure P 1 is indicated by the table given below: ( 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 petitioners infunctional Industrial Estate for Electronics, Okhla Phase-11, New Delhi and toexecute perpetual sub-leases in their favour in respect of the plots 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 by wayof last opportunity to file the reply and the case was postponed to 4/03/1997. ( 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 by wayof 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 respondents 1 to 3 onthat date. Respondent No. 5 has not chosen to file any reply in the case. ( 7 ) CONTENTION advanced by Mr. P. Nandrajog appearing for the petitionerswas that the petitioners case is squarely covered by decision of a Division Bench ofthis Court in C. W. No. 3170/95 titled as Brijesh Chandra Sharma v. Govt. of NCTof Delhi and Ors. , decided on 1/07/1996 and the petition deserves to be allowed. ( 8 ) AS noticed above, out of 177 persons, who were found eligible under thescheme, vacant physical possession of the plots could be handed over only to 101persons. 76 plots were either found undeveloped or heavily encroached upon bythe Jhuggi dwellers at the time of allotment in 1983. Left out 76 persons werethereafter allotted specific plots in the draw of lots held on 29/04/1993. By thedecision in Brijesh Chandra Sharma s case (supra), a batch of writ petitions wasdisposed of. Petitioners in those writ petitions were amongst 76 left out persons,whom plots were allotted in the draw held on 29/04/1993 and by whom thedemanded amount of the premium was paid within the stipulated period. Obviously, the case of the petitioners is identical to the petitioners inaforesaid CWP No. 3170/95 on law and facts. Petitioners are, therefore, entitled to the same reliefwhich was granted to the petitioners by the decision in Brijesh Chandra Sharma scase (supra ). ( 9 ) THE petition accordingly is allowed but without any order as to costs. Respondents 1 to 3 are directed to execute requisite lease-deeds so as to materialisethe allotments of plots made to the petitioners. If any incidental formality isrequired to be fulfilled by any of the petitioners, the same shall be duly compliedwith by them within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of intimationin this regard from respondents 2 and 3. Respondents 2 and 3 are directed to commencethe follow up actio within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of writorder from this Court. Respondents 2 and 3 are directed to commencethe follow up actio within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of writorder from this Court. In all eventualities the execution of the lease-deeds anddelivery of possession shall be completed within a period of three months from thedate of receipt of writ order from this Court. It will, however, be open torespondents 1 to3 to scrutinise and verify if by occurrence of any subsequent eventany of the petitioners has ceased to be entitled or become disentitled for allotmentof plot under the Scheme.