K. Ramamoorthy, J. ( 1 ) APART from the Association who is the first petitioner there are more than 380 other petitioners. It is stated in the petition that it is a Public Interest Litigation. The petitioners have prayed for: Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent Union of India and Government of Delhi to allot the flats to petitioners in their possession or any other place and to charge easy instalments from those who can pay and to give free accommodation to widows of 1984 riots. Issue a writ in the nature of prohibition restraining the Respondents from ousting the petitioner from the flats in their possession. ( 2 ) THE petitioners have projected the case that they are the victims of 1984 s riots and the assurances were given by the Government of India that accommodation will be given to those persons. The petitioners claim that they are like the refugees in their own country. Their rights under Articles 19 (1) (e) and 21 of the Constitution of India have been infringed. According to the petitioners, the respondents have not carried out their duties by providing shelter to the persons like the petitioners. Therefore, according to the petitioners the flats in their possession should be allotted to them and they be permitted to pay easy instalments and also for writ of prohibition restraining the respondents from dispossessing them from the flats under their possession. ( 3 ) ON 15. 03. 1997, Shri Manjit Singh, Joint Commissioner, Slum and JJ Department, MCD, Delhi filed a counter affidavit in compliance with the order passed by this court on 06. 03. 1997 explaining the factual position with reference to the quarters/tenements and how they remained unlotted and unoccupied. The said affidavit reads as under: I Manjit singh, the deponent above named, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as follows: That a total of 21. 839 quarters/tenements were constructed by the slum and J. J. department, at present with the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. out of these, 17. 620 quarters/tenements have been allotted to various categories of Slum evictees, including 1984 riot victims. It may be stated that out of the said afore mentioned allotment, 2187 quarters/tenements have been allotted to 1984 riot victims. This figures of 2187 includes 567 tenements allotted in Raghubir Nagar, New Delhi, the area in question in the present writ petition. 620 quarters/tenements have been allotted to various categories of Slum evictees, including 1984 riot victims. It may be stated that out of the said afore mentioned allotment, 2187 quarters/tenements have been allotted to 1984 riot victims. This figures of 2187 includes 567 tenements allotted in Raghubir Nagar, New Delhi, the area in question in the present writ petition. That 1181 quarters/tenements have been allotted to Institutions/government departments and 300 quarters have been allotted to staff members. That as at present a total of 2646 tenements/quarters, including 464 at Raghubir Nagar, New Delhi, the area in question are lying un-allotted. However, all the 464 quarters/tenements in the area in question have been trespassed upon by tress-passers including the petitioners, primarily between February 12, 1997 and February 17, 1997. It may be stated that these quarters were lying vacant and during the night of January 26, 1997 and January 27, 1997 the petitioners tress-passed into the same. The tres-passers were promptly evicted on January 27, 1997 itself with the aid of the police. Thereafter the quarters/tenements in question remained in occupation of the Slum and J. J. department. However, after passing of the orders dated January 31, 1997 and February 12, 1997 by this Hon ble Court, persons including the present petitioners tres-passed into the said quarters between February 12, 1997 and February 17, 1997. That as at present a total of 1401 quarters/tenements all over Delhi including the 464, subject matter of this present petition, have been tres-passed by various persons. Efforts are on to get the said quarters/tenements vacated. That the quarters in question have been primarily constructed for housing the evictees from the Slum areas of Delhi. After the 1984 riots, a policy was framed so as to accommodate the riot victims of 1984 and in pursuance of the said policy, as already stated, some quarters/tenements have already been allotted to the 1984 riot victims. It would be expedients to state at this very stage that after the 1984 riots, a policy was framed by the Government to invite applications from persons claiming to be riot victims. Such applications were to be made to the Deputy Commissioner, Delhi, and an Officer, being an Additional District Magistrate, with the designation Additional District Magistrate (Relief) was appointed to scrutinise the said applications and identify the 1984 riot victims. Such applications were to be made to the Deputy Commissioner, Delhi, and an Officer, being an Additional District Magistrate, with the designation Additional District Magistrate (Relief) was appointed to scrutinise the said applications and identify the 1984 riot victims. The A. D. M (Relief) on being satisfied after due verification of claim, would issue an officer letter in a prescribed proforma, to the slum and J. J. department, signifying the allotment of a tenement to such beneficiary. To obviate any fraud, the said offer letter of allotment was supported by an attested photograph of the beneficiary. Such offer letters were required to be issued separately in respect of each individual. On receipt of such offer letters, the Slum Wing as it was then known, would only give possession of Slum quarters allotted to an individual after giving a specific quarter number. It was in this manner that quarters/tenements have been allotted to persons, identified as 1984 riot victims at various places, including Raghubir Nagar, as already stated hereinabove. That the Slum and J. J. department has been making strenuous efforts to persuade residents of various Katras in the Slum areas to shift to the tenements/quarters. However, there has been lot of resistance in this effort of the Slum and J. J. department and it is in this context that some quarters have so far remained un-allotted. Every effort was made by the Slum and J. J. department to motivate the residents of Slum properties/katras. However, it has not been possible to shift them from properties located in the walled city and its extensions. One of the main grounds for such resistance is that the occupants are insisting that allotments be made to each and every adult member separately in addition to the Head of the family. Slum and J. J. department have surveyed a large number of properties in the Slum areas. Even eligibility letters for allotment of alternative accommodation were issued but the occupants of the properties in the Slum areas were not ready to vacate the said properties, primarily on the ground that their married sons, daughters, were not being allotted tenements independently. That the Slum and J. J. department is making all out efforts to see to it that the occupants of the properties in the Slum areas, are shifted to the tenements built for that purpose. That the Slum and J. J. department is making all out efforts to see to it that the occupants of the properties in the Slum areas, are shifted to the tenements built for that purpose. That an already stated, the Slum and J. J. department hasbeen making attempts to persuade persons in the Slum areas to shift to the newly built tenements. However, the difficulty has been because of the resistance from such persons to shift to such tenements. However, where-ever the authorities find that the building in question is dangerous and is becoming unfit for human habitation, even forcible eviction has been ordered and in fact such persons shifted to the tenements in question. That as per procedure, after a person residing in the Slum areas is identified for shifting to the newly constructed tenements, he is issued a letter of offer in that behalf and is called upon to deposit 10% of the estimated cost of the tenements/quarters. it is only when such a deposit is made by the person concerned that the specific quarter is identified. The allottee is then asked to surrender the property in the Slum area and it is only after the said property is surrendered that the allottee is allowed to shift to the newly allotted quarter. The difficulty in a large number of cases has been that after issuance of allotment letters, a large number of persons have not come-forward even to deposit the estimated 10% cost. It was in this context that a large number of quarters/tenements have remained un-allotted and un-occupied. ( 4 ) MR. M. P. Bansal, Executive Engineer, Construction Division-II, Slum and JJ Department, MCD, Delhi filed another affidavit on 19. 03. 1997 explaining the position, which reads as under: AFFIDAVIT of Shri M. P. Bansal, Executive Engineer, Construction Division (S) II, Sandjj Deptt. , MCD, Delhi, in persuance of the order dated March 17, 1997 passed by this Hon ble Court. THAT the statement given by Sh. Trilok Singh, Secretary of the Petitioners Association, made a false statement that the members of the petitioners association namely petitioners No. 2 to 386 had vacated the quarters in question prior of his making the statement. , MCD, Delhi, in persuance of the order dated March 17, 1997 passed by this Hon ble Court. THAT the statement given by Sh. Trilok Singh, Secretary of the Petitioners Association, made a false statement that the members of the petitioners association namely petitioners No. 2 to 386 had vacated the quarters in question prior of his making the statement. I state that I personally supervise the operations of taking possession from the petitioners and the petitioners gave possession only in the later part of the day on March 17, 1997, and all through the process of taking over of possession. Shri Trilok Singh was present at the site. The slum and JJ dept. of the MCD took possession of 466 flats. THAT so far as the persons from whom possession was taken on that day are concerned, they decline to divulge their particulars. However, even in respect of the persons behong 386 no. , Sh. Trilok Singh went on stating that they were also our man. All the persons from whom possession was taken by the MCD on March 17, 1997, gave the possession only after Sh. Trilok Singh has told them to do so. THAT in view of what has been stated above, no person came into possession of flats of 15th or 16th of this month. The persons from whom possession was takenn March 17, 1997, are those person who had come into possession around 16 and 17, 1997. THAT during the survey, certain facts came to the notice of the slum and JJ Deptt. which require mentioning in the present proceedings. There are four petitioners namely Sh. Rajinder Singh at serial No. 351, Sh. Man Mohan Singh at serial No. 353, Sh. Ravinder Singh at serial No. 355 and Sh. Harnam Singh at serial No. 357 who have been stated to be in occupation of flat No. B-71/a, B-72/a, B-73/a and B/74/a respectively. However, these tenements are allotted to Smt. Bhagwati Kaur, Smt. Devender Kaur, Sh. Surjit Singh and Smt. Lalti Devi respectively. The respective dates of allotment of the said persons are Oct. 1, 1993, Aug. 2, 1994, Dec. 16, 1992 and Feb. 9, 1993. The said persons alongwith their families are still in the actual possession of the said tenements. THE careful scrutiny of the petition shows that two person have claimed to be in possession of the same flat in several instances. 1, 1993, Aug. 2, 1994, Dec. 16, 1992 and Feb. 9, 1993. The said persons alongwith their families are still in the actual possession of the said tenements. THE careful scrutiny of the petition shows that two person have claimed to be in possession of the same flat in several instances. A list of such overlaping instances is annexed herewith as Annexure-`a . Apparently, the petitioners have made false statement to the Court and for this short reason, have thus entitled themselves to the grant of indulgence of the Court in exercise of the Courts powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. THAT it is further pertinent to note that the petitioners have given fictitious flat numbers in the hope of grabbing some flats at the site. The said petitioners are at serial No. 3, 55, 164, 176, 191, 364, 369, 373 and 374. It is stated that the flat numbers, the said petitioners purport to be in possession of, are non-existent. There are no flats bearing these numbers. This apparently speaks volume about the conducts of the petitioners. THAT so far as the writ petition is concerned, suffice it to say that the same is misconceived and merits rejection of the sole ground that the petitioners have come to the Court after inordinate delay. It is stated that shortly after 1984 riots, the Government of India announced a policy and guidelines respecting allotment of residential accommodation to the riot victims of 1984. Wide publicity was given to the said policy. Applications seeking such relief were required to make to the Deputy Commissioner Delhi, who had deputed an additional District Magistrate (Relief and Rehabilitation) and A. D. M. (Relief ). The ADM (Relief) on being satisfied after due verification of the claim would issue an offer letter in the prescribed performa such offer letter compulsorily supporting an attested photograph of the beneficiary. Each beneficiary was to be issued a separate letter. It was only on receipt of such offer letters, that the slum wing, as it was then known, would give possession of the tenement allotment to an individual, if the flat number was given. THAT so far no such offer letter has been received from the ADM (Relief) in respect of the petitioners, or signifying the allotment of the flats in question. THAT the Slum and JJ Deptt. THAT so far no such offer letter has been received from the ADM (Relief) in respect of the petitioners, or signifying the allotment of the flats in question. THAT the Slum and JJ Deptt. is not aware if any application were made by the petitioners to the Deputy Commissioner, Delhi, as required, or any application is pending scrutiny before the said authority. THAT the present writ petition besides being premature is misconceived. Besides the same is an abuse to the process of court, it is strange that the petitioners have stated in the petition with impunity that they have trespassed into the tenements in question and still the petitioners wishes this Hon`ble Court to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction to come to the aid of such a trespassing persons. It is stated that there is no equities in favour of the petitioners. Further, the petitioners have no legal right for allotment of tenements, specially when the petitioners did not avail any of the policy announced by the Government in the relevant behalf, at the appropriate stage, and before the appropriate forum. Had the petitioners approached the ADM (Relief) would have scrutinised their applications in a proper manner. However, after lapse of such a long time, there is every possibility of evidence being fabricated and in the circumstances even such an exercise would not only be futile, but also not in the fitness of things, and in the public interest of the state in as much as chances of public property being grabbed by undeserving persons would be larger than in the normal circumstances. THAT since the petitioners had trespassed into the public property, an FIR has already been lodged by the Municipal Corporation with the Police Station Rajouri Garden, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi. THAT seeing from any angle, the present petition deserves summary disposal. ( 5 ) IN the light of the factual position explained in the affidavits, it is stated that the the petitioners cannot claim any rights to allotment. ( 6 ) THE second respondent, National Capital Territory of Delhi in its counter affidavit has furnished details about the action taken by the Government for rehabilitating the person, who were affected by the riots. Along with the counter a status note on various reliefs and rehabilitation measures taken by the Delhi Government, for the sake of victims of 1984 s riot has been appended as Annexure R-1. Along with the counter a status note on various reliefs and rehabilitation measures taken by the Delhi Government, for the sake of victims of 1984 s riot has been appended as Annexure R-1. ( 7 ) EXCEPT making some vague averments in the petition about their alleged rights under Article 19 (1) (e) and 21 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have not made out any case for interference. This is a Public Interest Litigation. The petitioners were bound to produce materials to enable this court to adjudicate the rights of the parties so that appropriate direction could be issued to the Public Authorities to perform their duties. In the light of the affidavits and the counter affidavits filed by the second respondent referred to above, we are of the view that there is no substance in the claim of the petitioners, particularly in view of what has been stated in the affidavit of Arun Kumar Mishra Officer in Charge, Department of Relief and Rehabilitation, Govt. of N. C. t. Delhi dated 30. 07. 1997 (page 247) which has remained unexhibited and reads: THAT this Hon ble Court by order dated 27. 3. 1997 had directed the Answering Respondent to file an Interim Report regarding progress of the inquiry being undertaken by this Government to ascertain the eligible Petitioners who may be provided benefits under the relief and rehabilitation programmes for riot victims in Delhi. Accordingly this affidavit is being filed to place on record the result of the inquiry conducted. 2. That the answering respondent by their short affidavit of March 20, 1997 had placed on record the various schemes of the Government of India and the Delhi Government for rehabilitation of 1984 riot victims. These schemes have been in operation for a period of about 11 years. IT was also placed on record that the open endedness of the scheme was resulting in thier misuse and vested interests that had been created desired continuation of the schemes. It was the perception of this Government that unauthorised settlement should not be allowed to come up to take advantage of political sympathy to force the Government to commence new programmes for reliefs without sufficient information. 3. It was the perception of this Government that unauthorised settlement should not be allowed to come up to take advantage of political sympathy to force the Government to commence new programmes for reliefs without sufficient information. 3. That it was placed on record that the matter was considered at the highest level in this Government when it was decided that this Government would follow a consistent policy that those who suffered in the 1984 riots should be uniformly compensated, subject however, to ;full verification and investigation of the claims. THAT the answering respondent states that of the list of 386 persons, no documents had been furnished on behalf of 149 persons and documentation submitted on behalf of 157 persons who were eligible did not specify any facts as regards the degree and extent of loss to properties, life or limb. IT may be noted that under the schemes of the Government, the claimants were required to furnish documents including the death certificate, ration card prior to 1984, voters list prior to 1984, Bank Pass BNook, ownership/tenancy proof of the immovable property and an affidavit. 5. It was also placed on record that when this Government invited applications in the prescribed proforma from the list of 386 alleged victims, in response only 284 applications were filed. These were represented by Shri Tirlok Singh of the Petitioner Organisation. The preliminary scrutiny of these 284 applicants revealed that 74 new names had been included and which said 74 names did not find mention in the original list of 386 received from the Government of India. Accordingly this Government rejected the 74 new applicants whose name did not figure in the original list of 386 and scrutiny was taken up of only of 210 applicants. The documents submitted by these 210 claimant were wholly incomplete. 6. As indicated in the earlier affidavit scrutiny was conducted by the concerned Sub-Division Magistrate consequent upon the Division of Delhi into 9 Districts and 27 Sub-divisions, each under one Sub-Divisional Magistrate. WHEN the inquiries and verifications were conducted by the area Sub-Divisional Magistrates and all cases have been rejected by the concerned Area Sub-Divisional Magistrate. The reasons for rejection, inter alia, briefly are as follows: (A) Some of the Applicants, as per the lists, were not traceable at Jantar Mantar, at the old address during 1984 riots and even at the nearby Gurdawars around Jantar Mantar. The reasons for rejection, inter alia, briefly are as follows: (A) Some of the Applicants, as per the lists, were not traceable at Jantar Mantar, at the old address during 1984 riots and even at the nearby Gurdawars around Jantar Mantar. (B) Some of the Applicants left Delhi after six months to one year after the riots. So far as the claim of the Applicants that they ran outside Delhi due to fear of riots, the same seems to be baseless as normalcy was restored in Delhi within few days of riots. (C) The Applicants did not register an F. I. R. regarding any loss of property/life; (D) Documentary proof like death certificate, F. I. R. Ration Card prior to 1984 riots, ownership proof, tenancy proof, electricity bill/water bill of their 1984, shcool certificate of children of 1984 riots, job proof of Delhi etc. was not submitted by the Applicants. hence no documentary evidence was available to evidence as to whether the applicant is actually residing in Delhi before and during 1984 riots. (E) Statement of local witnesses could not led to any concrete evidence. (F) Statement of the applicants were themselves found to be contradictory. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. C. W No. 74/95 The petitioners (thirty seven in numbher) have prayed for the following reliefs: Issue a writ/direction/order in the nature of mandamus or any other suitable writ directing the respondents to issue the allotment letters and implement their promise to allot the same to the Riot victims of 1984 as ordered by the Respondent No. 2 and as mentioned in letters of S. D. M Office and A. D. M. s Office and direct the respondents to get the all formalities completed and taken the payment as decided to the extent of 1/4th of costs and balance in easy instalments. The relief prayed may kindly be granted in the light of judgement passed in Civil Writ No. 1807/87, passed on 30. 8. 1988. ( 8 ) THE petitioners claim that they are living in the premises mentioned in the cause title since 1984 and they were affected by the 1984 riots and therefore they are entitled to allotment of the flats. On 31. 03. 8. 1988. ( 8 ) THE petitioners claim that they are living in the premises mentioned in the cause title since 1984 and they were affected by the 1984 riots and therefore they are entitled to allotment of the flats. On 31. 03. 1995, Shri C. S. Bisht, Deputy Director (Allotment) Slum and J. J. Department, Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Delhi filed his affidavit in answer to the writ petition. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioners had trespassed into the flats and have falsely claimed to be riot victims. In view of the bizarre circumstances under which petitioners had come forward with the claim, we feel it necessary to extract the counter as under: I, C. S. Bisht, the Deponent above named, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as follows: 1. That the present writ petition is purely an abuse of the process of the Court. The petitioners have, after trespassing into the flats in question, wrongly claimed themselves to be riot victims. The petitioners have dis-entitled themselves to discretion of this Hon ble Court. 2. That as per the policy lead down by the government, it is the respondent No. 5 who scrutinises individual cases for being declared as riot-vicdtims, and then directions are given to the Slum and J. J. Department of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi to allot suitable flats in rehabilitation colonies to such persons. The flats are allotted only to persons who are ultimately found eligible in terms of the scrutiny by the respondent No. 5. 3. That in the instant case, on receipt of a communication dated June 30, 1988, the Slum and J. J. Department requested the responnt No. 5 vide communications dated October 10, 1988 and November 24, 1988 to furnish offer letters of eligible person individually, alongwith attested photographs in terms of the requirements of the policy for riot victims of November, 1984 Relief and Rehabilitation, so as to enable the Slum and J. J. Department to initiate action. The respondent No. 5 forwarded to the Slum and J. J. Department Offer Letters of 12 persons found eligible for such allotment/regularisation of occupation in the said flats. This was done on April 6, 1989. The respondent No. 5 forwarded to the Slum and J. J. Department Offer Letters of 12 persons found eligible for such allotment/regularisation of occupation in the said flats. This was done on April 6, 1989. It is stated that apart from the communication respecting said 12 occupants no further communication has been received till date from the A. D. M (Relief and Rehabilitation) in spite of yet another request having been made on July 2, 1991. THAT none of the petitioners is riot-victim. It is specifically denied that any of the petitioners has been allotted any flat even temporarily at any place in the resettlement colonies in Delhi. All the petitioners are trespassers. The following are the particulars of the trespassers:s. No. of Date of Trespass petitioner 1. 03. 10. 1985 2. 22. 08. 1985 3. 03. 08. 1989 4. 22. 08. 1985 5. 22. 09. 1989 6. 09. 09. 1989 7. 22. 09. 1989 8. 22. 08. 1985 9. 22. 08. 1985 10. 22. 08. 1985 11. 22. 08. 1985 12. 09. 09. 1989 13. 16. 05. 1989 14. 22. 08. 1985 15. 22. 08. 1985 16. 22. 08. 1985 17. 21. 03. 1989 18. 04. 05. 1994 19. 22. 08. 1985 20. 05. 06. 1989 21. 21. 03. 1989 22. 22. 11. 1989 23. 04. 12. 1985 24. Is not in occupation of flat B-82-Y, Jahangir Puri, Delhi, Flats has been allotted to and is in actual occupation of Shri Prem Singh since 8. 5. 1986. 25. 22. 08. 1985 26. Date could not be ascertain. 27. 22. 08. 1985 28. 22. 08. 1985 29. 22. 08. 1985. 30. The petitioner No. 30 is not in occupation of Flat no. A-24-X Jahangirpuri, Delhi, the same has been given on rent to the Police Department who are paying rent to the Slum and J. J. Deptt. 31. 26. 09. 1989. 32. 22. 08. 1985. 33. The petitioner No. 33 is not in occupation of flat no. A-87x, ahangir Puri, Delhi. The same has been allotted to Shri M. P Sharma s/o Sh. Chander Bhan on january 27, 1986 34. Petitioner No. 34 is not in occupation of flat No. B-85, Jahangirpuri, Delhi. The saifloor has been allotted to Shri Mohan Singh s/o Shri Surendra Singh on 24. 12. 1985. 35. 22. 08. 1985 36. 23. 06. 1989 37. 08. 11. 1985. Chander Bhan on january 27, 1986 34. Petitioner No. 34 is not in occupation of flat No. B-85, Jahangirpuri, Delhi. The saifloor has been allotted to Shri Mohan Singh s/o Shri Surendra Singh on 24. 12. 1985. 35. 22. 08. 1985 36. 23. 06. 1989 37. 08. 11. 1985. AS per policy the said trespassers are not eligible for resettlement and rehabilitation. It is made clear that the slum and J. J. Department is not an agency for conducting a scrutiny of the claims of riot victims. 5. It is specifically denied that any of the persons mentioned above were ever rehabilitated, even temporarily, in the flats at Jahangirpuri. As already stated these persons have trespassed into property owned by the respondent No. 6 and are liable to be evicted therefrom forthwith. It is further stated that out of the 12 offer letters received in the office of the respondent No. 6, 10 slum flats at Jahangirpuri have been regularised in the name of riot victim on the payment of 1/4th cost of the flat, initially. 6. That since the persons mentioned above are trespassers, they are not entitled for resettlement and rehabilitation under the above stated policy. It is made specifically clear that the respondent No. 6 is not an Agency for scrutiny of the claims of flat victims. 7. That the complex of Slum flats at Jahangirpuri were constructed under the Slum Clearance Scheme meant for allotment to the persons under the Slum Clearance Operation of the respondent No. 6 and allotments have been made to the riot victims of November, 1984 only on receipt of offer letters of A. D. M. (Relief) namely respondent No. 5, who are the only persons competent to determine shelter eligibility of riot victims for allotment. The persons mentioned in Annexure P-4 to the petition are ranked trespassers in the quarters in question having so trespassed in about June, 1985 and December, 1989 on different dates. 8. That all those persons who are found eligible for allotment of flats by virtue of such persons having been found to be riot victims, are allotted flats by the respondent No. 6 under the Slum Clearance Scheme and persons having proper allotment letters are re-housed in the constructed slum flats by way of allotment. 8. That all those persons who are found eligible for allotment of flats by virtue of such persons having been found to be riot victims, are allotted flats by the respondent No. 6 under the Slum Clearance Scheme and persons having proper allotment letters are re-housed in the constructed slum flats by way of allotment. Any person who does not possess the requisite allotment letter or eligibility certificate cannot be permitted the continue occupying flats in question, such person being a rank trespasser. ( 9 ) AT the time of arguments, except reiterating the facts stated in the petition no materials were brought to our notice to form an opinion about the rights of the petitioners. The DDA has disputed the claim of the petitioners. We do not find any reasons to doubt the facts stated in the counter affidavit of Shri C. S. Bisht. To rebut the factual position the petitioners have not produced any material or documents and have failed to substantiate their claim for allotment. They cannot expect this court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to assume things in favour of the petitioners. We do not find any merit in the writ petition, which is dismissed as devoid of force. C. W. No. 5218/94 ( 10 ) THE petitioners have filed the present writ petition praying for the following reliefs: ISSUE a Writ/direction/order in the nature of mandamus or any other suitable writ directing the respondents to issue the allotment letters and implement their promise to allot the same to the Riot Victims of 1984 as ordered by the Respondent No. 2 and mentioned in letters of S. D. M Office and A. D. M s Office and direct the respondents to get the all formalities completed and take the payment as decided to the extent of 1/4th of costs and balance in easy instalments. ( 11 ) THE facts are similar to the other writ petitions i. e. CW No. 74/95. The petitioners have not be able to substantiate their claims or their right for allotment. It was represented by the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioners have no right for any allotment of the flats which they occupied only in 1989. We have no hesitation in accepting the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondents which stand has not been controverted by the petitioners. It was represented by the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioners have no right for any allotment of the flats which they occupied only in 1989. We have no hesitation in accepting the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondents which stand has not been controverted by the petitioners. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. C. W. No. 170/95 ( 12 ) THE petitioners (twenty nine in number) purporting to be represented by an advocate have filed the present writ petition praying for the following reliefs: (A) Directing the respondents not to take any coercive measure to evict the occupants of the flats as mentioned in Annexure `p-1 allotted to them temporarily under the category of Riot Victims, without recourse to due process of law; and (B) directing the respondents to consider the applications submitted to respondent No. 3 pursuant to the directive of respondent No. 2 dated 30th June 1988 and order dated 30th August, 1988, of this Hon ble Court in Civil writ No. 1807/87 and further regularise the flats occupied by the aforesaid riot victims under the category of `riot Victims on payment of reasonable cost to be paid in easy instalments as has been granted to similarly placed riot victims; ( 13 ) HERE also general allegations have been made and no specific particulars have been given as to how the members of the petitioner s association would be entitled to the allotment and for the regularisation of the possession of the flats which are under occupation of the members of the association. Mr. G. L. Meena, Deputytated in the counter affidavit as under: PARA No. 1 of the Writ Petition is a matter of record. However it is respectfully submitted that the petitioners organisation is not recognised by the Govt. for the purpose of Rehabilitation of the Riot Victims. It is further respectfully submitted that the Govt. established various camps in the Union Territory of Delhi. Many of the Riot victims returned to their old houses as soon as the situation became normal. THE persons who were left in the Camps, their list was prepared and tenements were allotted to them after due verification. Vide the office of Respondent No. 3 the cases of 112b were examined for allotment in compliance with Hon ble High Court directions. THE persons who were left in the Camps, their list was prepared and tenements were allotted to them after due verification. Vide the office of Respondent No. 3 the cases of 112b were examined for allotment in compliance with Hon ble High Court directions. Out of which 42 persons only were found fit (writ petition No. 1807/87) eligible for allotment and their names were forwarded to DDA (Slum and J. J. Wing) for further sections. IT is further stated in the counter: In reply to para 3 and 4 of the Writ Petition, it is respectfully submitted that after the unfortunate riots, the Delhi Administration geared up its machinery and made efforts to give assistance in cash and kind to the unfortunate victims. A number of Camps were set up in Union Territory of Delhi, food and shelters were provided to the Riot Victims. As soon as the situation became normal, most of the inhabitants returned to their old Houses. Delhi Govt. left no stone unturned in rehabilitating the Riot Victims. It is further respectfully submitted that most of the Riot Victims have been rehabilitated. ( 14 ) THE respondents (NCT of Delhi) also stated in the country affidavit in para 5 which reads as under: IN reply to para 5 of the Writ Petition, it is submitted that the persons who were left in the Camps, their list was prepared and tenements were allotted to them after due verification. vide the office of Respondent No. 3 the cases of 1128 were examined for allotment in compliance with Hon ble High Court directions. Out of which 42 persons only were found fit (Writ Petition No. 1807/87) eligible for allotment and their names were forwarded to D. D. A. (Slum and J. ,j. Wing) for further actions. IN view of orders dated 30. 6. 1988 of Lt. Governor of Delhi, President Relief Camp Committee, Jahangirpuri sent a list of 79 persons stating that the said persons had been living in the said houses since 1984 and requested the administration to regularise the unauthorised occupation in the said Slum Housing Flats at Jahangirpuri and that the matter was discussed and a list of 77 persons was forwarded to Commissioner (Slum and JJ), D. D. A. I. P. Estate, New Delhi vide Office letter No. F. 9 (826)/r/d. C. /88/715 dated 30. 6. 1988. 6. 1988. The Answering Respondents had received the letter vide No. D/732/d. D (19)88 dated 10. 10. 88 from Deputy Director (CEanda), DDA Slum Wing. After going through all the process of Enquiry the Answering Respondents had sent the list of 12 persons as eligible for the demanders with the offer letter as per Scheme. It is further submitted that Annexure R-II letter No. F. 9 (198)/r/d. C. /88/3048 dated 16. 9. 91 is self explanatory. IT is further submitted that some of the present Petitioners were also in the petition in Writ Petition No. 1807/87. ( 15 ) IT has also been stated as to how the victims in the riots were given assistance: It is submitted that the riot victims were temporary accommodated in the various Camps established by the Govt. and were provided all kinds of help by the Delhi Administration like: (I) The Riot widows were provided with jobs and were given ex-tratia relief for the death of their family members: (II) Kiosk were also being allotted to those riot widows who prefer so; (III) Riot widows who have not yet been employed pension @ Rs. 400/p. m. is being paid to these widows (now Rs. 1000. 00 p. m ). And further it is submitted that the Govt. also encouraged the widows for re-marriage. An assistance of Rs. 5000. 00 was given to those widows for remarriage. The marriage assistance was also extended to the daughters of the riot widows for marriage and is still going on: (IV) Old age pension (above 60 years0 who lost their earning member or would be the earning members were also considered for pensionary benefits @ Rs,. 400. 00 p. m. (now Rs. 1000. 00 p. m); (V) Compensation was also provided to those business establishments who had insurance policy (Ist and IInd party) but not covered for riot risks. (VI) The administration also invited claims for compensation from the uninsured commercial business establishments who suffered losses/ damages during these riots. ( 16 ) IT is also stated that time was granted to the claimant,for establishing their claims. (VI) The administration also invited claims for compensation from the uninsured commercial business establishments who suffered losses/ damages during these riots. ( 16 ) IT is also stated that time was granted to the claimant,for establishing their claims. It is further stated: IN reply to para 8 of the Writ Petition, it is respectfully submitted that after due verification by the Respondent No. 3 the only 34 persons out of 77 submitted documents and out of them 12 persons were found eligible for allotment vide D. O. letter No. F. 9 (198)/r/dc/88/3048 dated 16. 9. 1991 (Photocopy of Annexure R-II (a) and further opportunities were also given in the remaining cases but nobody came forward with any substantial evidence establishing a benefit riot victim of 1984. Shri C. S. Bisht Deputy Director (Allotment) Slum and J. J. Depart of M. C. D. in his affidavit stated: " that the persons shown in Annexure P-1 to the petition are not the persons who are riot-affected. It is specifically denied that the persons mentioned in the said list were allotted any flats, even temporarilly at Jahangirpuri in 1984. It is pertinent to note that persons mentioned at serial nos 2 to 4 and 28 are not even in occupation of any of the said flats at present. In fact they have illegally tresspassed into these flats between June, 1985 and December, 1989 on different dates. A list, indicating the date of tresspass committed in respect of each of said flats ;;is enlcosed herewith as Annexure `a . As per policy the said tresspassers are not eligible for resettlement and rehabilitation under the policy laid down by the G;overnment. It is made clear that the Slum and J. J. Department is not a Agency for conducting scrutiny of the claims of riot victims. ( 17 ) THE petitioner have not cared to rebut the factual position. In the light of the above factual position as reflected in the reply affidavits, we are of the view that the petitioners Organisation and the petitioners have not made out any case for interference. The petition is dismissed. C. W. No. 2899/95 ( 18 ) THERE are 71 petitioners including the first petitioner and the victims association. In the light of the above factual position as reflected in the reply affidavits, we are of the view that the petitioners Organisation and the petitioners have not made out any case for interference. The petition is dismissed. C. W. No. 2899/95 ( 18 ) THERE are 71 petitioners including the first petitioner and the victims association. The petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs: (I) Issue a Writ/direction/order in the nature of mandamus or any other suitable writ directing the respondents to issue the allotment letters along with immediately handing over the possession of the flats and implementing their promise to allot the same to the riot victims of 1984 as ordered by Respondent No. 2 and admitted by the A. D. M in a Letter to D. D. A. and the claim papers taken by the Deputy Commissioner and direct them to get all the formalities completed and taken the payment as decided to the extent of 1/4th of costs and balance in easy instalments. And not to disposses the petitioners from the roof s in their occupation. (II) The relief prayed may kindly be granted in the light of judgement passed in Civil Writ No. 1807/87, passed on 30. 08. 1988. ( 19 ) THEY have not produced any letter of allotment in support of their claims. Mr. Jwala Prasad Sharma, Deputy Director (Relief and Rehabilitation, filed the counter affidavit on behalf of the N. C. T. of Delhi 12. 02. 1996. It is stated in the preliminary objection that the petitioners 2 to 17 do not come within the purview of the Rehabilitation scheme as per the directions issued by this court in CW No. 1807/87. It is stated that after assassination of the Prime Minister of India, Smt. Indira Gandhi, the Government has taken all necessary action and also provided food and shelter to the victims of Riot. Number of camps were established in the whole territory of Delhi and as soon as the situation became normal most of the persons returned to their original place of residences. Persons who were in the camp had been allotted alternative accommodation after due verification. The petitioners did not come under any category and they have not established any right for allotment. Persons who were in the camp had been allotted alternative accommodation after due verification. The petitioners did not come under any category and they have not established any right for allotment. It is stated in the counter that: IT is admitted to the extent that a list containing the names of 142 so called alleged victims was received from the Office of Prime Minister s Secretariate as annexed as Annexure R-1. Out of which flat No. C-104-Y, Jahangirpuri, was allotted to Shri Gurswak Singh, son of Gurdial Singh, after thoroughly examination of his claim and was found genuine one. Rest of 70 (Seventy Applicants) applicants were not shown in the above list of 142 applicants. HOWEVER, as per the orders of the Hon ble High Court dated 30. 6. 1988 cases of 1128 applicants to examine their genuineness of the riot victims. It is respectfully submitted that the names from Sl. No. 2 to 71 (i. e. Seventy only) were not existing in the above mentioned lists of 1128 cases. ( 20 ) IT is also stated: IT is also submitted that in addition to the above list of 77 applicants as per orders dated 30. 6. 88 Lt. Governor Delhi, President Relief Camp Committee, Jahengirpuri also sent a list of 79 persons stating that the said persons had also been living in the said houses since 1984. Matter was discussed and a list of 77 persons was forwarded to Commissioner Slum and JJ) DDA, vide letter No. F. 9 (826)/r/dc/715 dated 30. 6. 88. The two persons out of 79 were not found at the site of Jahengirpuri as per the verification. The Government of India had verified the claims of the various persons and it is stated as under: IT is further submitted that as per letter No. U/732/dd (19)/88 dated 10. 10. 88 from Deputy Director of D. D. A. , Slum Wing, as annexed as Annexure R-II the Answering Respondents had sent a list of 12 persons as eligible for the tenements with offer letter as per the scheme after due all the process of enquiry and verification. ( 21 ) THE Government had also further through the DDA examined the claims of various persons and it is stated: IT is further submitted that the Answering Respondent office and D. D. A. had examined the list of 142 cases, 1128 cases and 79 cases. ( 21 ) THE Government had also further through the DDA examined the claims of various persons and it is stated: IT is further submitted that the Answering Respondent office and D. D. A. had examined the list of 142 cases, 1128 cases and 79 cases. After thorough enquiry and deciding the genuineness only 166 applicants were allotted flats at Janangirpuri (Photocopy annexed for the perusal of the Hon ble Court as Annexure R-III) so far in case of Sl. No. 2 to 71 the names were not at all existing in any of the above mentioned three lists. The riot victim society has also not given the names of fathers/husbands of the persons to misguide the Respondents Departments knowingly. ( 22 ) THE petitioners were in unauthorised occupation of the premises. Their claims were found to be not genuine. It is stated in the counter that the persons who are really affected by the roits were given all the help and tenements were allotted at Tilak Vihar, Garhi, Raghubir Nagar, Madipur, Sangam Park, Jahangirpuri, G. T. Road Shahdara and Kalkaji, New Delhi. ( 23 ) IN the absence of the materials from the petitioners to substantiate their claims and when the respondents have taken all steps to help the persons who were affected by the riots, and in the absence of the petitioners rebtting the respondents claim, we have no hesitation in accepting the case of the respondents. Detail affidavits have been filed in CW 413/97 bringing on record the factual position and explaining the reason that why the petitioners are not entitled to any relief. In our view, the petitioners have not made out any case for interference and accordingly the writ petition stands dismissed. ( 24 ) CW Nos 413/97, 2899/95, 170/95, 74/95 and CW 5218/94 stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Interim orders vacated.