ORDER Arun Mishra, J. The petitioners claim quashment of the notices Annexures P. 3, P. 5 and P. 6 by issuing writ of certiorari and writ of mandamus commanding the respondent to accept the balance amount of Rs. 4800/- from each of the petitioners towards full and final payment of the consideration for allotment of plots in their favour and to hand over possession. The petitioners are related members of one family. Petitioners submit that they had applied for allotment of plots in their names from Jabalpur Development Authority. The respondent had carved out plots of the area 60' x 40' = 2400 square feet. The petitioners' applications were granted on 20-11-1982. Plot No. 219 was allotted to petitioner No. 1, plot No. 221 to petitioner No. 2, plot No. 220 to petitioner No. 3 and plot No. 222 to deceased petitioner No. 4 Shri Amit Bhatia died substituted by Shri Anil Bhatia, during the pendency of the present petition. The price was fixed for the each plot of 2400 square feet (60' x 40') at the rate of Rs. 4/- per square feet payable in four equal instalments. First instalment was payable on the date of allotment and subsequent instalments as and when intimations were given to the allottees by the respondent. The petitioners had paid Rs. 2400/- towards first instalment on 20-11-1982. Thereafter petitioners were intimated to deposit the second instalment in January, 1984. A sum of Rs. 2400/- was deposited on 12-1-1984 as second instalment. Thereafter no intimation was received by the petitioners for depositing further instalments. Petitioners filed applications on 17-9-1985 requesting the respondent to inform them the balance amount payable by them so that the same may be deposited. But the respondent did not give them any information. Subsequently the petitioners were orally informed that in connection with certain complaints relevant files were sent to Lokayukt, Bhopal in connection with an enquiry. On 19-2-1987 notice Annexure P. 3 was sent to each of the petitioners demanding the rate of the plot at Rs. 10/- per square feet. In the notice dated 19-2-1987 the respondent called upon the petitioners to deposit Rs. 1200/- and given their consent by 28-2-1987 and thereafter for payment of the balance of Rs. 18,000/-, three equal instalments of two months shall be given to the petitioners. The petitioners were served legal notices through their counsel on 26-2-1987 Annexure P. 4. In the notice dated 19-2-1987 the respondent called upon the petitioners to deposit Rs. 1200/- and given their consent by 28-2-1987 and thereafter for payment of the balance of Rs. 18,000/-, three equal instalments of two months shall be given to the petitioners. The petitioners were served legal notices through their counsel on 26-2-1987 Annexure P. 4. Repeated by another notice Annexure P. 5 on 20-5-1987. Petitioners submit that principles of promissory estoppel comes into operation in the instant matter. Having promised and agreed to allot the plots at the rate of Rs. 4/- per square feet, it was not open to the respondent to unilaterally revise its rate at the rate of Rs. 10/- per square feet. Various representations were filed by the petitioners but they were not taken into consideration. The petitioners submitted that the respondent has to act in a reasonable, fair and just manner and it cannot be allowed to act in an arbitrary and illegal manner. At the time of allotment of plots in questions, whatever terms and conditions were settled by the respondent, they were binding on the respondent and it was not open to the respondent to unilaterally enhance the rate of the plots in questions from Rs. 4/- to Rs. 10/- per square feet. The petitioners had deposited two instalments. There was no delay to pay the balance amount of the remaining two instalments. It was the duty of the respondent to have informed the petitioners for deposit of the remaining amount. In the return filed by the respondent, it has been contended that there was no valid allotment in favour of the petitioners and so called allotment was contrary to Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Vikasit Bhoomiyo, Griho, Bhavano Tatha Anya Sanrachanao Ka Vyayan Niyam, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') framed in exercise of powers conferred by section 58 read with section 85 of the Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973. Rule 5 and Rule 6 of the Rules deals with the mode of transfer of authority land and reads thus: 5. Transfer of the Authority land shall be as under:- (a) By direct negotiations with the party; (b) By public auction; or (c) By inviting tenders or (d) Under concessional terms. Rule 5 and Rule 6 of the Rules deals with the mode of transfer of authority land and reads thus: 5. Transfer of the Authority land shall be as under:- (a) By direct negotiations with the party; (b) By public auction; or (c) By inviting tenders or (d) Under concessional terms. Rule 6 of the Rules reads as under: (1) In the case of disposal of land by direct negotiations, the Authority land shall be disposed of at a premium fixed by the Authority in accordance with general or special sanction given by the State Govt. to the sale of premium to be fixed and all the authority land transferred in accordance therewith shall be liable to ground rent at two percent of the premium. (2) Where it is proposed to dispose of any Authority land by negotiation, due publicity of sale of plots shall be given in atleast two newspapers of which one shall be a local Hindi paper and in any other newspaper that has wide circulation in the State and by pasting notices in prominent place like offices of the Town and Country Development Authority, Municipal Corporation, Municipal Council, Commissioner, Collector and Tehsildar concerned. (3) Offers to acquire in leasehold rights of a plot of which premium has been fixed shall be accompanied with an amount less than l/5th of the premium of plot as earnest money. The acceptance of the earnest money shall not be deemed to impose any obligation on the Authority to grant a lease of plot to the person making the deposit. If the offer is accepted, a communication to that effect shall be given to the purchaser when the grant of lease is sanctioned by the Chariman. The respondent further contends that Shri M.C. Jesswani was the Chief Executive Officer of the respondent Development Authority in the year 1982. He was on deputation from State Government. Despite the statutory procedure under the rules quoted above, he did not follow the same in the matter of allotment of plots to the petitioners. The petitioners directly approached to the Chief Executive Officer on 8-11-1982 and submitted the application Annexure R. 1. The same was not presented in the prescribed manner in the office. Shri Jesswani went out of his way in allotting four plots to one and the same family. The petitioners directly approached to the Chief Executive Officer on 8-11-1982 and submitted the application Annexure R. 1. The same was not presented in the prescribed manner in the office. Shri Jesswani went out of his way in allotting four plots to one and the same family. No affidavit was filed along with the application nor even 1/5th of the premium amount of the plot was deposited with the said application. The allotment was made on 8-11-1982 by putting an endorsement on the application itself whereas Rs. 2400/- were deposited on 18-11-1982. The Chief Executive Officer even did not care to enquire from the office whether the plots were available. No report was called from the office or the scheme incharge. The applications were filed on the same day and the allotment was procured in contravention of the provisions of Rule 5 of the Rules. The plots were allotted at the rate of Rs. 4/- per sq. ft. whereas the prevailing rate then was Rs. 5/- w.e.f. 15-10-1982. The respondent submits that no office order of allotment was issued in either of the four cases by the office. In fact, no such order could be issued allotting the plots to the petitioners inasmuch as the allotment itself was wholly illegal. No publicity for sale of the plots was given in the local newspapers as is required under the Rules for information of public in general. The matter came to the notice of the State Vigilance Department. An enquiry was made against Shri Jesswani. The Vigilance Department found that the plots were irregularly allotted without following the prescribed procedure. It was, therefore, considered to cancel the allotment. However, in view of the fact that Rs. 2400/- were deposited on each count, the allotment was not cancelled but considering the fact that substantial development had been carried out since then, it was considered to realize the premium at Rs, 10/- per sq.ft. The balance amount Was sought to be realized in three instalments. A memo was accordingly sent to the petitioners on 19-2-1987, Annexure P. 2 asking for the premium at Rs. 10/- per sq.ft. This was done as a special case td give relief to the petitioners. There was no valid allotment made in their favour and nothing was communicated to them, they were not entitled to allotment of the plots. The petitioners did not deposit the amount. 10/- per sq.ft. This was done as a special case td give relief to the petitioners. There was no valid allotment made in their favour and nothing was communicated to them, they were not entitled to allotment of the plots. The petitioners did not deposit the amount. Reminders were sent to them on 20-5-1987 Annexure R. 3 and Annexure R. 4 and they were asked to take back the amount deposited by them. The cancellation of allotment of the plots in question was fully justified and the petitioners are not entitled to either allotment or payment of premium at Rs. 4/- per square feet. In spite of the notices the petitioners failed to deposit the amount, therefore, the allotment was rightly cancelled. The matter is purely contractual and no interference is called for. Shri Ravish Agrawal, learned Sr. counsel with Shri Ajay Ojha appearing for the petitioners submits that once allotment was made, the same should not have been cancelled in arbitrary manner and unilaterally and demand of Rs. 10/- per square feet is contrary to the terms of the allotment and Rule 5 of the Rules permits allotment by negotiation. Shri Sameer Vyohar, standing counsel for the respondent. JDA supports, by reiterating, the stand taken in the return. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the plots in questions were not allotted in accordance with the requirement of rule 5 of the Rules. The plots can be allotted by private negotiation. Rule 6 required that in case of disposal of land by direct negotiations, the Authority land shall be disposed of at a premium fixed by the Authority in accordance with general or special sanction given by the State Govt. to the sale of premium to be fixed and all the authority land transferred in accordance therewith shall be liable to ground rent at two percent of the premium. Rule 6(3) requires publicity to be given before making any negotiation in two news papers. Rule 6(3) requires offer to purchase to accompany 1/5th of premium as earnest money. In the instant case respondent has clearly averred in the return that no newspaper publicity was given. No premium was deposited. In my opinion, it was not open to the then Chief Executive Officer to dispose of the land by negotiation in the manner he did it. In the instant case respondent has clearly averred in the return that no newspaper publicity was given. No premium was deposited. In my opinion, it was not open to the then Chief Executive Officer to dispose of the land by negotiation in the manner he did it. It also appears that applications were submitted directly to the Chief Executive Officer. They were not filed in the prescribed form and endorsement of allotment was made by the Chief Executive Officer on the applications without obtaining an affidavit which is required for allotment and the plots were ordered to be allotted in undue haste without following procedure of Rule 6. It appears that no formal order was ever issued to the petitioners with respect to the allotment of the plots. The petitioners have also not filed any order showing that plots were allotted to them. However, the fact has been admitted in the return that order of allotment was passed endorsed on applications but the fact remains that no formal order was communicated. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, no right can be claimed by the petitioners, it was rightly concluded by J.D.A. that the allotment of the plots was irregular. Thus, instead of cancelling the allotment fresh offer was given to the petitioners in order to regularize the allotment made in their favour to purchase the same at the rate of Rs. 10/- per square feet which cannot be said to be arbitrary fixation of the rate. Particularly when stand taken by the respondent is that substantial development had been done in the several years up to 1987 and price was also not Rs. 4/- per square feet in the year 1982 and it was Rs. 5/- per square feet. Thus, the allotment itself was at the lesser rate. In my opinion, in the fixation of rate in such contractual matters when power is exercised by the Development Authorities, scope of interference is not much. It has not been shown that fixation of price in the year 1987 at Rs. 10/- was illegal or arbitrary which assumes significance as 1982 allotment was illegal. It is not the case of the petitioners that rates in the year 1987 were less. It has not been shown that fixation of price in the year 1987 at Rs. 10/- was illegal or arbitrary which assumes significance as 1982 allotment was illegal. It is not the case of the petitioners that rates in the year 1987 were less. Thus, in my opinion, it cannot be said that action of the respondent in offering the regularization of the plots in case petitioners agree to make payment at the rate of Rs. 10/- per square feet, cannot be said to be arbitrary or illegal nor suffered any infirmity. Once the initial allotment was illegal, J.D.A. was not obliged to make an offer in 1987 to regularize grant the petitioner have not accepted the offer due to their own fault. I find no merit in the instant writ petition. The same is dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to the costs. The premium deposited by the petitioners be refunded to them within two months from today. No order as to costs. Final Result : Dismissed