DR. M. K. SHARMA, J ( 1 ) IN all these writ petitions issues raised on fact and on law are similar in natureand therefore, I propose to dispose of at! the writ petitions by this common judgmentorder. ( 2 ) THE petitioners were owners of land situated at Revenue Estate of Villagesamaipur. Land owned by the petitioners was acquired by Delhi Administration forthe planned development of Delhi pursuant to notifications under 4 and 6 of the Landacquisition Act and award was passed. ( 3 ) THE Union of India promulgated a scheme in the year 1961 by virtue of whichpersons whose lands had been acquired for planned development of Delhi becameeligible for allotment of alternative plot in lieu of their land acquired by the Government. The said scheme laid down general directions to regulate acquisition, developmentand disposal of lands in Delhi, avowedly, with the object to control land values in Delhias well as to secure the development of Delhi according to plan. An Act namely - Thedelhi Development Act was passed by the Parliament to provide for development ofdelhi according to plan and for matters ancillary thereto and Delhi Developmentauthority was established under the provisions of Section 3 of the said Act. There isalso a set of rules called Delhi Development Authority (Disposal of Developed Nazulland) Rules, 1981. The said rules lay down the purposes for which Nazulland may beallotted and the persons to whom such land could be allotted and in what manner. ( 4 ) IN terms or the aforesaid provisions of the scheme as also the provisions of theact and the Rules cases of petitioner were considered by the Land and Buildingdepartment for allotment of land in lieu of acquisition of their land. On considerationof the cases of the petitioners the names of the petitioners were recommended forallotment of alternative plots measuring 250 Sq. Yards, undercommunication fromland and Building Department of Delhi Administration. In the light of the aforesaiddecision of the Land and Building Department the names of the petitioner wererecommended for allotment of alternative plot under the scheme of large scaleacquisition, development and disposal of land in Delhi, 1961. Such letters have beenplaced on record by the petitioners. In respect of Jai Bhagwan the letter was issuedon 13. 10. 1986 whereby the Joint Secretary of the Land and Building Departmentrequested Delhi Development Authority to allot a plot measuring 250 Sq. Yds. Such letters have beenplaced on record by the petitioners. In respect of Jai Bhagwan the letter was issuedon 13. 10. 1986 whereby the Joint Secretary of the Land and Building Departmentrequested Delhi Development Authority to allot a plot measuring 250 Sq. Yds. to thepetitioner Jai Bhagwan in North Zone. A reading of the said letter would indicate thatthe allotment of alternative plot by the aforesaid communication was onlyrecommendatory and was subject to availability of plot with Delhi Developmentauthority, which fact is specifically mentioned in the said letter. It was also madeexplicit in the said letter that it did not carry any legal commitment for the allotment ofany alternative plot. On receipt of the aforesaid letters Delhi Development Authoritywrote letters to the petitioner intimating that they had been recommended for allotmentof alternative plots and also allotment they should pay an amount as mentioned in thesaid letters. It was stated in the said letters that if the aforesaid amount is paid in timeand upon compliance of all the requisite formalities their names would be included inthe draw of lots for allotment of specific plots. All the petitioners paid the amount asdemanded and waited for their allotment when they were informed that they wereallotted land of lesser area than for which their names were recommended. ( 5 ) BEING aggrieved by allotment of plots of lesser area than what was recommendedby the Land and Building Department of Delhi Administration and what was initiallyaccepted by Delhi Development Authority, the petitioners preferred the present writpetitions in this court, with the allegation that although bigger plots are available thesame are being auctioned instead of making allotment to the petitioners and alsowith the allegation that there is hostile discrimination between the petitioners andother similarly situate persons. At the time of issuance of notice an order was alsopassed by this court that the respondents would record one fully developed/semi-developed 250 Sq. yards plot for each of the petitioner it they ultimately succeed. Iam now informed by the counsel appearing for the parties that pursuant to saidorders plots of 250 Sq. Yards, or more are being reserved for the petitioners in Northzone. ( 6 ) MR. Anand, Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that when thenames of the petitioners were recommended for allotment of a plot measuring 250sq. Iam now informed by the counsel appearing for the parties that pursuant to saidorders plots of 250 Sq. Yards, or more are being reserved for the petitioners in Northzone. ( 6 ) MR. Anand, Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that when thenames of the petitioners were recommended for allotment of a plot measuring 250sq. Yards, and the said recommendation was accepted by Delhi Developmentauthority by directing them to deposit the amount as demanded and stating in theletter if such payment is made his name would be included in the draw of lots for aspecific plot, the respondent/dda could not have allotted smaller plot than what wasrecommended by the Land and Building Department. He also submitted on the basisof records placed alongwith the petition that the respondent/dda was near about thesame time auctioning plots measuring 250 Sq. yards, to various people which wasillegal, for the petitioner had priority in the matter of allotment of land in view of theprovisions of the scheme as also the provisions of the Nazul Rules or 1981. In supportof his contention the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners relied upon the Fullbench decision of this court in Ramanand Vs. Union of India, AIR 1994 Delhi 29and also the decision rendered by a Single Judge of this court in Rajinder Kumar Vs. Union of India and Others, C. W. P. No. 515/1983 disposed of on 23. 11. 1984. ( 7 ) MR. Jayant Bhushan, on the other hand appearing for the respondent submittedthat there is no foundation laid down in the writ petitions alleging discrimination and itis only in the rejoinder that such plea is being sought to be made out. He alsosubmitted that in fact no discrimination has been made in the matter of allotment ofplots to the petitioners and that such allotment has been made in terms of thescheme, the relevant Act and the Rules framed thereunder. He submitted that thepetitioners had no vested right for allotment of plot of land in lieu of their acquired landand the only right that they had was to be considered for allotment of land inaccordance with the plan. In support of his contention he also relied upon the decisionof the Full Bench of this court in Ramanand Vs. Union of India (Supra ). In support of his contention he also relied upon the decisionof the Full Bench of this court in Ramanand Vs. Union of India (Supra ). ( 8 ) IN order to appreciate the contention of the learned counsel appearing for theparties it is necessary to notice some of the relevant provisions of the Scheme of1961. The aforesaid 1961 Scheme envisaged large scale acquisition of land forbeing developed bydifferent authorities of land for being developed by differentauthority for different purposes. Clause 6 provides for giving out Nazul land in thename of the President only on lease hold basis to local bodies, Co-operativesocieties, industrialists, individuals, and institutions etc. Clause 8 laid down, as ageneral policy, that disposal of developed land should be made by auction and thepremium should be determined by the highest bid. Anexception was, however,made in. cases. where land may be allotted at pre-determined rates, namely - the costof acquisition and development, plus some additional charges, to certain categoriesof individuals, including individuals whose land had been acquired. The petitionersadmittedly fall in the aforesaid category of persons whose lands had been acquired. As stated herein above, under Delhi Development Act the authority was establishedand it was empowered to acquire hold and dispose of land and other properties,carry out building, engineering, mining and other operations etc. Sections 21 and 22thereof which are relevant for the purpose of determining the present case areextracted herein below:- 21. (1) Subject to any directions given by the Central Government underthis Act, the Authority or, as the case may be, the local authority concernedmay dispose of (a) any land acquired by the Central Government and transferred to it,without undertaking or carrying out any development thereon; or (b) any such land after undertaking or carrying out such development as itthinks fit, to such persons, in such manner, and subject to such terms andconditions as it considers expedient for securing the development of Delhiaccording to plan. (2) The powers of the Authority or, as the case may be, the local authorityconcerned with respect to the disposal of land under sub-section (i) shall beso exercised as to secure, so far as practicable, that persons who are livingor carrying on business or other activities on the land shall, if they desire toobtain accommodation on land belonging to the Authority or the local authorityconcerned and are willing to comply with any requirement of the Authority orthe local authority concerned as to its development and use, have anopportunity to obtain thereon accommodation suitable to their reasonablerequirements on terms settled with due regard to the price at which any suchland has been acquired from them: Provided that where the Authority or the local authority concerned proposesto dispose of by sale any land without any development having beenundertaken or carried out thereon, it shall offer the land in the first instance tothe persons from whom it was acquired, it they desire to purchase it subject tosuch requirement as to its development and use as the Authority of the localauthority concerned may think fit to impose. (22.) (1) The Central Government may, by notification in the official Gazette andupon such terms and conditions as may be agreed upon between that. Government and the Authority, place at the disposal of the Authority all orany developed and undeveloped lands in Delhi vested in the Union (knownand hereinafter referred to as "nazul Lands") for the purpose of developmentin accordance with the provisions of this Act. (2) No development of any nazul land shall be undertaken or carried outexcept by, or under the control and supervision of the Authority after suchland has been placed at the disposal of the Authority under sub-section (1 ). (3) After any such nazui land has been developed by, or under the controland supervision of, the Authority, it shall be dealt with by the Authority inaccordance with rules made and directions given by the Central Governmentin this behalf. (4) If any nazul land placed at the disposal of the Authority under sub-section (1) is required at any time thereafter by the Central Government, theauthority shall, be notification in the Official Gazette, replace it at the disposalof that Government upon such terms and conditions as may be agreed uponbetween that Government and that Authority. (4) If any nazul land placed at the disposal of the Authority under sub-section (1) is required at any time thereafter by the Central Government, theauthority shall, be notification in the Official Gazette, replace it at the disposalof that Government upon such terms and conditions as may be agreed uponbetween that Government and that Authority. ( 9 ) IN exercise of powers conferred by clause (1) of sub-section (2) of Section 56read with sub-section (3) of Section 2 of Delhi Development Act, 1957 the Centralgovernment framed a set of Rules called Delhi Development Authority (Disposal ofdevelopment Nazul Land) Rules, 1981 providing for them anner of dealing with Nazulland developed by or under the control and supervision of the Delhi Developmentauthority. Rule 2 of the said Rules defines "nazul land" to mean the land placed at thedisposal of the control and supervision of the Authority under Section 22 of the Act. "pre-determined rates" is defined to mean the rates of premium chargeable fromdifferent categories of persons and determined by notification from time to time, bythe Central Government, having regard to (a) cost of acquisition, (b) developmentcharges, and (c) concessional charges for use and occupation. Rules 4 thereof laysdown the persons to whom Nazul land may beallotted when it provides that theauthority may, in conformity with the plans, and subject to the other provisions ofthese rules, allot Nazul land to individuals, body of persons, public and privateinstitutions, co-operative house building societies, other cooperative societies ofindividuals, co-operative societies of industrials and to the departments of the Centralgovernment, State Government and the Union territories. Provisions of Rules 6 and 12,on which much emphasis was placed by the counsel appearing for the parties areextracted herein below:- (6.) Allotment of Nazul land at pre-determined rates. Subject to the otherprovisions of these rules the Authority shall allot Nazul land at the predetermined rates in the following cases namely: -. (1) to individual whose land has been acquired for planned development ofdelhi after the 1st day of January, 1961, and which forms part of Nazul land;provided that if an individual is to be allotted aresidential plot, the size ofsuch plot may be determined by the Administrator after taking into consideration the area and the value of the land acquired from him and the location and the. value of the plot to the allotted; (ii) to individuals in the, low income group or the middle income group, otherthan specified in clause (i)-446 (a) who are tenants in a building in any area in respect of which a slumclearance order is made under the slum areas act; (b) who, in any slum area or the other congested area, own any plot of landmeasuring less than 67 square meters or own any building in any slum areaor other congestea area; (iii) to individuals, other then those specified inclauses (i) and (ii), who are inthe low income group or the middle income group, by draw of lots to beconducted under the supervision of the Land Allotment Advisory Committee. (iv) to individual belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes orwho are widows of defence personnel killed in action, or ex-servicemen,physically handicapped individuals subject to the provisions of rule 13; (v) to (vi ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ (12.)$ Priority of allotment for residential purposes - Subject to the availabilityof land for allotment for residential, purposes among the individuals referredto in clause (i) to (ii) of rule 6, the individual referred to in clause (i) shall bepreferred to the individuals referred to in clause (ii) and those in clause (ii)shall be preferred to those inclause (iii ). ( 10 ) WHILE contending that Delhi Development Authority has unauthorisedly reducedthe size of the plot although on behalf of Delhi Administration recommendation wasmade for allotment of a plot of a larger, size, Mr. Anarid submitted that on the facts andcircumstances of the case the ratio of the decision of Ramanand s case (supra)would not apply to the facts of the present case, for according to him the decisionrendered by the Single Judge in Rajinder Kumar s case (supra) is more appropriateto the facts and circumstances of the present case. The aforesaid submissionhowever, was refuted by the counsel for the respondent and therefore, it would benecessary to notice the aforesaid Full Bench decision rendered by this court. The aforesaid submissionhowever, was refuted by the counsel for the respondent and therefore, it would benecessary to notice the aforesaid Full Bench decision rendered by this court. Thesaid decision took notice of the scheme of 1961, provisions of Delhi Developmentact as also the provisions of the Nazul Rules and on consideration thereof it was heldthat the provisions earlier made in the 1961 scheme stood implied repealed by themore comprehensive and detailed provisions made later in the subject and in thesaid field by the Nazul Rules in 1981. The Full Bench also noticed various provisionsofnazlrt Rules and in paragraph 22 held that the contention on the basis of rule 12that the individuals whose land has been acquired, as against the others should begiven over-riding and preferential right to allotment of residential land. It added thatthe said proposition would hold good only to the extent of priority for allotment inter sethe individuals referred to in clause (i), (ii) and (iii) of Rules 6 and that rule 12 does notplace the individuals mentioned in clause (i) at any advantage or over-riding positionin relation to the other sub-categories of individuals referred to in clause (iv) or clause (v) of rule 6 itself, much less in relation to the other categories of persons named inrule 4. ( 11 ) IN paragraph 20 of the said decision it was laid down that Rule 4 confers on thedda a power to allot land to the specified categories of persons, but it cannot besaid that it confers upon any one a right to allot land for it does not cast upon the DDAany obligation or duty to make such allotment to any particular person or category ofpersons mentioned therein. It was also held that the rule gives to the DDA, by use ofthe word may a discretionary power to allot land to all or any of the named categoryor persons, and in that context it was held that an individual whose land has beenacquired for planned development of Delhi has no absolute right to allotment but he iseligible to be considered for allotment of alternative plot for residential purposes andthat the DDA may allot nazul land to the categories of persons specified in Nazulrules. ( 12 ) PARAGRAPH 25 of the aforesaid judgment is also relevant and contents of the saidparagraph are extracted below:- RULE 6 (1) proviso, undoubtedly, provides for determination of the size of theplot by the Administrator if an individual is to be alloted residential plot. But,the power to. make the allotment lies within the domain of the DDA. Theadministrator, being the land acquiring authority, is to verity whether the landof an individual applicant is acquired, and the area and value thereof. Onthese facts, then the DDA, who is entrusted with the power and function ofdevelopment and disposal of land, would examine the matter, in the light ofthe plans and the other rules, and decide whether a plot may be allotted tohim, and, if so, or what size and where. It cannot be said, on the basis of thisprovision,. that the right to allotment of a plot would accrue, merely onverification of the claim, and even on the basis of recommendation made bythe Administrator in favour of the individual whose land is acquired. " ( 13 ) IT is thus, crystal clear that the petitioners do not have a vested right for allotmentof a plot of land in lieu of their acquired lands nor do they have any vested right toclaim that a plot of particular size should be allotted to them. The Full Bench decisionhas categorically set at rest the position that they only have a right to be consideredfor allotment of a plot of land and the also a plot of the size which is available withdelhi Development Authority. In relation to the contention that instead or giving abigger plot tome petitioner such plots are being auctioned, reference may be made448to the provisions of Rule 24 of the Nazul Rules under which auction of plots ofdifferent sizes are made by Delhi Development Authority. It was stated by therespondent in their counter affidavit that allotment of plot is subject to availability ofthe plots and that does not carry with it any legal commitment for the allotment ofalternative plot. It was also stated that due to non-availability of sufficient fully developedplots in Peetampura, it was decided to offer semi-developed plots in Rohini andaccordingly offer letters were sent to the petitioners. It was also stated that due to non-availability of sufficient fully developedplots in Peetampura, it was decided to offer semi-developed plots in Rohini andaccordingly offer letters were sent to the petitioners. An additional affidavit wassubsequently filed by Development Authority contending inter alia that the petitionerhad been allotted a bigger plot through draw of lots than the size of plots offered byletter dated 8. 12. 1988. It was also stated that the availability of plots of bigger size inblocks H4 and 5 in Peetampura although are available they are very few in numberwhich have become available due to cancellation of the allotment and revision of theplan of the Pockets H-4 and 5, Peetampura. It was also stated that said plots soreserved however, cannot be allotted to the petitioners for the reasons that theseniority position of the petitioners according to the seniority list are much below andif the said bigger plots are allotted to the petitioners several other persons who aresenior to the petitioners would come forward for allotment of bigger plots to them,which would create an embarrassing position. ( 14 ) THE petitioners have also placed on record a list containing names of all thepersons who have been allotted alternative land in lieu of their acquired land and inthe said the names of the petitioners are shown. So far the petitioner jai Bhagwan isconcerned he is placed at Sr. No. 70 of the said list and he has been allotted with aplot of land measuring 144 Sq. Meters. I have perused the said list carefully. All thepersons have been allotted either a plot measuring 120 Sq. Meters, or a plotmeasuring 144 Sq. Mtrs. except for 5 persons who have been allotted a plot of landmeasuring 162 Sq. Mtrs. The contents of the aforesaid list placed on record by thepetitioners have been explained by the respondent in their counter affidavit contendinginter alia that 236 semi-developed plots in Rohini Sector 4 measuring 120 Sq. Mtrs. became available on 26. 10. 1978 to Delhi Development Authority for alternativeallotment in North Zone, and that the same were offered on 8. 12:1988 to the eligiblerecommendee in the order of seniority which include the petitioners. It is also statedthat in the month of March, 1989 55 more semi-developed plots which include 50plots measuring 144 Sq. Mtrs. and 5 plots measuring 162 Sq. Mtrs. 10. 1978 to Delhi Development Authority for alternativeallotment in North Zone, and that the same were offered on 8. 12:1988 to the eligiblerecommendee in the order of seniority which include the petitioners. It is also statedthat in the month of March, 1989 55 more semi-developed plots which include 50plots measuring 144 Sq. Mtrs. and 5 plots measuring 162 Sq. Mtrs. In pocket 11,sector 5, Rohini became available with the DDA consequent upon which offer letterswere issued to the eligible persons in the order or seniority list on 9. 6. 1989. It is alsostated that after receipt of earnest money and afterobtaining their consent for thedraw the draw was held through computer on 13. 7. 1989, to avoid any discrimination,and that in the said draw the petitioners got allotment of plots of land. ( 15 ) THE aforesaid procedure adopted by the respondent appears to be reasonableand valid. The petitioners were entitled to be considered for allotment of a plot of landwhich was subject to availability of such plots. It is explicitly clear from the documentsplaced on record that plots of 120 Sq. Mtrs. , 144 Sq. Mtrs. and 162 Sq. Mtrs. wereavailable for allotment which were so allotted after draw of lots, in which the petitionersalso got plots of land measuring 144 Sq. Mtrs. The contention that the petitioner couldhave been allotted plots of land which were auctioned by Delhi Development Authority,in my considered opinion such land could not have been allotted to the petitioners, forthe plots of land which are to be auctioned are distinct and separate according to theplans and no one has anindefeasible right to claim a particular plot of land of aparticular size, which according to the authority is required to be auctioned in order tocope up with the expenditure incurred on development of plots and providingcommunity facilities by Delhi Development Authority. Similar pleas as taken by thepetitioners appear to have also been taken before the Division Bench of this court incase of Khazan Singh Vs. Union of India, in C. W. P. No. 1958/1996 disposed ofon 28. 10. 1998. In the said decision similar pleas as raised by the petitioners weredismissed. Similar pleas as taken by thepetitioners appear to have also been taken before the Division Bench of this court incase of Khazan Singh Vs. Union of India, in C. W. P. No. 1958/1996 disposed ofon 28. 10. 1998. In the said decision similar pleas as raised by the petitioners weredismissed. The Full Bench decision of this court has also held that Delhi Developmentauthority may allot nazul land to an individual who is eligible to be considered forallotment of an alternative plot for residential purpose in conformity with the plantsand subject to other provisions of the Nazul rules. As the plots which are meant forauction were not available to the petitioners in accordance with the plants and also inaccordance with the provisions of Nazul Rules, for those pleas are governed by theprovisions of rule 24 of the Nazul rules in respect of which the provisions could nothave claimed any priority, the contentions of the learned counsel appearing for thepetitioners are found to be misplaced. ( 16 ) IN my considering opinion, there is no discrimination. The decision relief upon bythe learned counset appearing for the petitioners was rendered prior to the decisionrendered by the Full Bench of this Court and the said decision did not take notice ofthe various provisions of the Nazul rules and that in that view of the matter the samecannot be said to be applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. ( 17 ) IN the result, I do not find any merit in these writ petitions. The same accordingly,stand dismissed but without costs.