C. K. Mahajan, J. ( 1 ) RULE. The short question that calls for decision in this writ petition is whether petitioner, who owned 40 square meters plot, was entitled to allotment of plot in the Rohini Residential Scheme, New Delhi. The petitioner has also prayed for possession of the said plot and for direction to the respondent to execute the conveyance deed. ( 2 ) THE petitioner applied for allotment of a plot in the Rohini Residential Scheme and was allotted plot No. 64, Pocket 9, Sector 24 measuring 64 square meters vide allotment letter dated 12. 11. 1991. A sum of Rs. 51,305. 96 was deposited by the petitioner after adjusting the amount already paid by him. The petitioner also submitted all the documents that were required for the purposes of allotment. Instead of handing over the possession of the plot to the petitioner, the respondents raised an objection that the allotment of the plot could not be made to the petitioner as he was already in possession of a property measuring 40 square meters. ( 3 ) THE petitioner made a representation to the respondent that the plot is situated in slum area and as per the Nazul Land Rules, 1981 he was eligible for allotment even if he owned a property measuring less than 67 square meters. The petitioner s representation was considered and rejected. Hence this petition. ( 4 ) IN the counter affidavit in opposition to the writ petition the respondent took up the stand that the petitioner was not eligible for allotment of the residential plot as he was the absolute owner of a plot measuring 45 square yards. The allotment was made inadvertently. The allotment of a residential plot to a person already owning less than 67 square meters was applicable in cases where the individual jointly own the property and not in cases where he had absolute ownership of the property which was less than 67 square meters. Apart from the aforesaid objections that the petitioner was owner of 45 square yards of land the petition was not seriously opposed by the respondents. ( 5 ) THE petitioner challenged the action of the respondent as being illegal, arbitrary and without any justification and contrary to the provisions of the Delhi Development Authority Act and Rules. Reliance was placed on Rule 17 of the Nazul Land Rules, 1981. ( 5 ) THE petitioner challenged the action of the respondent as being illegal, arbitrary and without any justification and contrary to the provisions of the Delhi Development Authority Act and Rules. Reliance was placed on Rule 17 of the Nazul Land Rules, 1981. The rule provides that no plot of Nazul land shall be allotted for residential purposes to an individual who owns in full or in part any residential house in the Union Territory of Delhi provided that where on the date of allotment of Nazul land the house owned by such individual or the share of such individual on the plot of land is less than 67 square meters. ( 6 ) I have considered the submissions of the respective counsel for the parties. There is merit in the contentions of the petitioner. ( 7 ) I am of the view that the respondent had gone wrong in cancelling the allotment of the petitioner. The Nazul Land Rules were not correctly interpreted by the respondents. There is no bar of eligibility if a person owns a property which is less than 67 square meters under the Nazul Land Rules, 1981. It is not disputed that the petitioner owned property less than 67 square meters. The respondents have not given any other reason for disentitling the petitioner to allotment of the plot in question. ( 8 ) IN the circumstances the aforesaid writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to hand over the possession of the plot to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of this order and to execute the conveyance deed of the said plot in favour of the petitioner. No order as to costs.