ORDER V.K. Bali, J. (Oral) - The only dispute in the present writ relates to the price of industrial plot, which has since already been allotted to the petitioners. 2. The facts, as are relevant for disposal of the present petition on the issue framed above, reveal that the petitioners applied for allotment of industrial plot way back in 1977 and draw of lots was held in 1979. Even though they were successful in allotment of the plot, yet no formal letter of allotment was issued, thus constraining them to file Civil Writ Petition No. 4525 of 1981, which came up for decision on 25.5.1995. Operative part of the order dated 25.5.1995 reads thus :- "On the facts and circumstances of the case, I feet that a direction can be issued to the respondents to consider the application of the petitioner for allotment of an industrial plot, if any plot of any size is available and if the petitioner is willing to take such plot on such conditions as may be in force as on today (emphasis supplied) for allotment of any industrial plot. With this direction, the writ petition is disposed of." 3. This order of learned Single Judge rendered in writ petition aforesaid came to be challenged by way of Letters Patent Appeal, which ultimately came up for disposal on 10.7.1996, operative part whereof reads thus :- "Respondents are directed to consider the application of the petitioner for allotment of industrial plot, if any plot of any size smaller than the size applied for is available, and the petitioner satisfies the terms and condition of policy of allotment of industrial plots as prevalent today on such conditions as the Union Territory may enforce as on today for the allotment of industrial plots including the prices etc. The consideration of the application of the petitioner may be made within six months." 4. The only contention raised by Mr. Gill, learned counsel representing the petitioners, is that the rate of industrial plot was fixed by the respondents on 8.9.1982, which was at the rate of Rs. 70/- per square yard. This revision in the price of industrial plot underwent a change only on 30.7.1996 when it was increased to Rs. 2100/- per square yard. Gill, learned counsel representing the petitioners, is that the rate of industrial plot was fixed by the respondents on 8.9.1982, which was at the rate of Rs. 70/- per square yard. This revision in the price of industrial plot underwent a change only on 30.7.1996 when it was increased to Rs. 2100/- per square yard. Inasmuch as, the Letters Patent Appeal, referred to above, came to be disposed of on 10.7.1996, by which date the, rates had not since been revised, the respondents had no choice but for to charge the rate of industrial plot at the rate of Rs. 70/- per square yard. The orders rendered in Writ Petition and Letters Patent Appeal, noted above, are stated to be inter-parties and that being so, the respondents have no choice in the matter but for to charge only Rs. 70/- per square yard from the petitioners. 5. The respondents have entered defence and hotly contested the cause of the petitioners. It has, inter alia, been pleaded in the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents that the petitioners were informed that it had been decided to allot industrial plot No. 389, Phase-II, Industrial Area, Chandigarh, measuring 1 kanal at the rate of Rs. 2100/- per square yard and they were asked to deposit 25% of the premium by demand draft. As regards the fixation of rate of allotment at Rs. 2100/- per sq. yard, the Administrator. Union Territory, Chandigarh fixed the rate of allotment of industrial plot at Rs. 2 100/- per sq. yard vide Annexure R-1 in order to comply with the directions issued by this Court vide order dated 10.7.1996 in Letters Patent Appeal bearing No. 781 of 1995 titled as Chandigarh Administration versus Rajinder Gupta and others. It has further been pleaded that industrial plots are allotted on concessional rates by the Chandigarh Administration and the same are not allotted by public auction. The allotment of land rate is fixed by the Chandigarh Administration from time to time. The Chandigarh Administration had fixed the rate of allotment of industrial plots at Rs. 70/- per sq. yard on 8.9.1982. The Chandigarh Administration vide Annexure R-1 had fixed the rate of land for various purposes in Chandigarh and the rate of industrial plots was fixed at Rs. 50/- sq. yard, whereas allotment of land to educational, religious, cultural and charitable institutions was fixed at the rate of Rs. 70/- per sq. yard on 8.9.1982. The Chandigarh Administration vide Annexure R-1 had fixed the rate of land for various purposes in Chandigarh and the rate of industrial plots was fixed at Rs. 50/- sq. yard, whereas allotment of land to educational, religious, cultural and charitable institutions was fixed at the rate of Rs. 60/- per sq. yard. The land rate for allotment had been revised in the year 1996 vide notification dated 30.7.1996, Annexure R-3 and the rate of land for educational purposes was fixed at Rs. 1800/- per sq. yard. In other words, rate of land for educational purposes had been fixed 30 times more than the rate fixed in the year 1981 and for religious purposes the rate had been fixed in the year 1996, 42 times more than the rate fixed in the year 1981. Keeping in view the comparison of increase in allotment of rates which comes to 30 times more in the case of land for educational purposes and 42 times more in the case of land for religious purposes, the rate in respect of the plot in question was fixed by the Chandigarh Administration at Rs. 2100/- per sq. yard, which comes to 42 times more than the rate of land fixed in the year 1981, i.e., Rs. 50/- per sq. yard. Vide notification, Annexure R-4, dated 24.5.1991, rates of land for religious, educational, cultural, charitable and other institutions had been refixed by the Chandigarh Administration as follows :- "1. Religious Institutions Rs. 500/- per sq. yard 2. Cultural Institutions Rs. 500/- per sq. yard 3. Educational Institutions Rs. 300/- per sq. yard 4. Charitable Institutions Rs. 300/- per sq. yard" 6. I have heard learned counsel representing the parties and with their assistance examined the records of the case. The only contention raised by Mr. Gill, learned counsel representing the petitioners, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case cannot possibly be accepted. It may be true that rates of industrial plots were settled at the rate of Rs. 70/- per sq. yard and the same came to be revised after a decision was rendered by the learned Single Judge or by the Honble Division Bench dealing with the Letters Patent Appeal mentioned above. It may be true that rates of industrial plots were settled at the rate of Rs. 70/- per sq. yard and the same came to be revised after a decision was rendered by the learned Single Judge or by the Honble Division Bench dealing with the Letters Patent Appeal mentioned above. But it comes out from the records of the case that in between these two dates, i.e., when the rates were settled earlier and when the rates were revised, there was no revision evidence at any stage. Surely, when the orders were passed in the earlier writ petition, the Court was conscious that from the date when the allotment was made in favour of the petitioners and when the orders as such were made, there ought to have been considerable increase in the price of the industrial plots, as otherwise, the Court ought to have ordered there and then that the petitioners be allotted the industrial plot on the same rate, which was in the offing at the time of initial application and not at the time when the plot was actually allotted to the petitioners. No doubt, the Chandigarh Administration fixed the price of the industrial plot on 30.7.1996 but from that alone it cannot be said that prevalent price on the date when the orders came to be passed in favour of the petitioners in the writ petition and the Letters Patent Appeal, mentioned above would be same as prevalent in 1970. That being so, no question, at all, arises to allot the industrial plot to the petitioners at the rate of Rs. 70/- per sq. yard, as claimed in the present writ. No merit. Dismissed. Petition dismissed.