( 1 ) HEARD Shri Murlidhar, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner, Shri V. M. Sahai, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and Shri N. C. Rajvanshi, learned Senior Advocate representing the respondent No. 4. ( 2 ) FROM the averments made in the writ petition it appears that the petitioner was allotted plot No. R-9/50 in Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad, by the Ghaziabad Development Authority. By notice dated 27/01/1987, a copy whereof is Annexure-2a to the writ petition, the petitioner was informed that the allotment in her favour has been cancelled. It appears that after cancellation of the allotment of the plot in favour of the petitioner it was allotted in favour of Shri A. K. Kansal, the respondent No. 4, and lease deed dated 27/03/1987 was executed by the Ghaziabad Development Authority in his favour. ( 3 ) THE petitioner prays that this Court may issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the notice dated 27/01/1987 (Annexure-2a) as well as the subsequent reallotment of the plot in favour of the respondent No. 4 and the lease deed dated 27/03/1987, in his favour executed by the Ghaziabad Development Authority. ( 4 ) SHRI V. M. Sahai and that Shri N. G. Rajvanshi, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents, draw the attention of the Court to the averments made in the second supplementary affidavit of the petitioner filed on 13/11/1990 and to Annexure-I annexed thereto and submit that upon conjoint reading of the averments of the supplementary affidavit and Annexure-I it becomes absolutely clear that the impugned notice has already been cancelled and the allotment of the disputed plot in favour of the petitioner has already been restored. ( 5 ) IN this backdrop, learned Counsel submit that instant petition has become infructuous and calls for no adjudication. ( 6 ) IN paragraph-4 of her second supplementary affidavit deponent says that :-"the G. D. A. had in fact cancelled the allotment to respondent No. 4 as per a decision in October 1989 and had decided to offer to restore the plot to the petitioner. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Finally after great difficulty and a number of visits the G. D. A. issued a letter dated 20/10/1990 to the petitioner offering to restore the plot to her subject to her agreement. . . . . . " ( 7 ) A copy of the letter dated 20/10/1990 is Annexure-I to the second supplementary affidavit of the petitioner. This is addressed to the petitioner and purports to inform her that the allotment of the disputed plot was restored on the condition of compliance of conditions imposed by the Development Authority and to this letter petitioner responded through her letter dated 22nd October, 1990, a copy whereof is Annexure-II to the second supplementary affidavit. By this communication she wanted to know her liabilities with regard to the payment and also to convey her agreement to pay. ( 8 ) THUS, on the material noticed above it becomes absolutely clear that the impugned notice of cancellation of allotment of the plot in favour of the petitioner dated 27/01/1987 does not survive and calls for no intervention by this Court. ( 9 ) SO far as the second prayer of cancellation of the lease deed dated 27/03/1987 executed in favour of the respondent No. 4 by the Ghaziabad Development Authority is concerned, the Court is of the opinion that writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not an appropriate remedy. Indeed, appropriate remedy in this regard would be civil suit. Otherwise also, instant petition is not maintainable in view of the decision of the Honble Supreme Court of India rendered in the case of Bareilly Development Authority v. Ajay Pal Singh, reported in AIR 1989 SC 1076 . ( 10 ) FOR what has been said above the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed. .