JUDGMENT Jawahar Lal Gupta, J. (Oral) - On December 1, 1999, the petitioners were allotted land for the purpose of running schools. The copies of the letters of allotment are at Annexures P-10 and P-15 with the writ petition. Even prior to making the allotment, it was noticed that a gas godown exists at the site. The possession of that portion of the land shall be given to the concerned society, after shifting it. The petitioner alleges that despite allotment having been made in December 1999, it was unable to start construction as trees and electric poles existed on the land. The petitioners represented to the authorities that the godown be get removed and that the electric wires as also trees be removed so that the construction work could be started. Having failed to get the requisite relief, the petitioners have now approached this Court with primarily a two-fold prayer. Firstly, the petitioners pray that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 should be directed to get the gas godown removed. Secondly, the petitioners pray that the payment of instalments be deferred till complete possession of the land is given after removal of the electric poles and the trees. 2. Despite opportunity, no written statement has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Reply has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 3 only viz. M/s Chahal Gas Agency. 3. Mr. Arun Jain states that the third respondent has a piece of land. The godown shall be shifted within four months from today. 4. So far as respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are concerned, the categoric averments made in para 17 are that electric poles and live electric wires were lying on the site. These were removed after a long delay. Thus, it was not possible to use the land despite allotment. These averments have not been controverted by the respondents by filing any reply. 5. Mr. Salil Sagar, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that respondents should not be entitled to demand instalments and interest etc. for the period during which the petitioners were unable to use the land. The claim made on behalf of the petitioners has been controverted by Mr. Thiara, appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 6. It is not disputed that live electric wires and poles existed at the spot. Thus, it would be difficult for the petitioners to reach the site. The claim made on behalf of the petitioners has been controverted by Mr. Thiara, appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 6. It is not disputed that live electric wires and poles existed at the spot. Thus, it would be difficult for the petitioners to reach the site. In this situation, we consider it appropriate to direct that the petitioners shall not be liable to pay any interest from the date of allotment till the date of actual vacation of the site by the respondents. 7. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction that respondent No. 3 shall vacate the site on or before December 10, 2001. It is further directed that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 shall not charge any interest from the petitioners for the period during which they were unable to remove the electric wires and poles. In the circumstances there will be no order as to costs. Order accordingly.