Per V.K. Jhanji, Chief Justice (Acting) : It appears that fairly a large number of persons and firms had been carrying on transport and allied business in Warehouse area, Jammu, mostly on State land. Some time in or around the year 1984, the Government of Jammu and Kashmir and the Jammu Development Authority in their endeavour to clear up the aforesaid State land at Warehouse area and to shift the transport business therefrom, decided to allot alternate sites to such person and firms for their business in the area known as Transport Nagar near Jammu Railway Head. The said Transport Nagar was basically a resettlement project financed by the State Government and executed by the Jammu Development Authority. Plots / Shop sites of various sizes were to be alloted to the individuals and firms in accordance with their entitlement determinable on the basis of the criteria laid down by the Jammu Development Authority. Some other persons had Khokhas in Warehouse area in which they were carrying on the business of spare parts, motor workshops, service stations, tyre retreaders, and body builders etc. They were also to be allotted shop sites. Persons who were connected with transport trade and were in possession of shops in the Warehouse area were to be allotted shop sites of the size of 15 x 40 and those who were having petty workshops in Khokhas were to be allotted shop sites measuring 12 x 15. In early Ninetys a fire incident took place in the Warehouse area and some Khokhas got burnt and they also staked claims to the allotment of shop sites at Transport Nagar. It appears that during the year 1991-92 large number of bogus persons and firms, who did not have any Khokha in Warehouse area, managed to obtain allotment letters in their favour. Jammu Development Authority also found that some of the persons who, in fact, had their Khokhas and were actually carrying on business connected with transport in the Warehouse area had not been allotted any shop site at Transport Nagar. The said persons alleged that the teams/Committees, which had been appointed to acertain and verify the existence of Khokhas burnt in fire, excluded their names on extraneous considerations. Consequently, a Committee of Officers was constituted to examine and acertain the names and relevant particulars of all such left out persons. The said persons alleged that the teams/Committees, which had been appointed to acertain and verify the existence of Khokhas burnt in fire, excluded their names on extraneous considerations. Consequently, a Committee of Officers was constituted to examine and acertain the names and relevant particulars of all such left out persons. The Committee published a notice asking all those who had Khokhas in the Warehouse area, but had not been allotted shop sites at Transport Nagar, to submit their claims along with proof. In response to the notice so issued by the Committee, as many as 396 persons filed their applications before it. The Committee examined each and every case and, after proper verification, recommended allottments only in favour of eighteen (18) persons. Vice Chairman, Jammu Development Authority, accepted the report of the Committee and, accordingly, allottments were made in favour of the said 18 persons. It appears though allottments of shop sites were made during the year 1988-91 by the Jammu Development Authority on the basis of verification conducted by the Committee, but no action was taken to demolish or remove the Khokhas those existed in Warehouse area and in lieu whereof shop sites at Transport Nagar were allotted in favour of such persons, nor any identification or numbers were given to such Khokhas so as to prevent claim of fresh or double allottment against the same Khokhas. In the absence of such identification marks, the same Khokhas in lieu of which allottments had already been made changed hands number of times and each successive transferee of the Khokhas claimed allottments. Since the Khokhas in the Warehouse area were constructed on State land without any permission, no record regarding their ownership was available. The teams of officers,who had been entrusted with the task of verification, did record the names of persons who were actually conducting business on the spot but there were persons who actually had no Khokhas in Warehouse area and even then got the allotment letters in their favour. The Jammu Development Authority completed the process of allotments on the basis of the report of the Committee costituted for verification. Some of the persons who had obtained the allotment letters, but failed to submit proof regarding existence of their Khokhas at Warehouse area, were not delivered possession of the shop sites for which allotment letters had been issued to them. They filed writ petitions. Some of the persons who had obtained the allotment letters, but failed to submit proof regarding existence of their Khokhas at Warehouse area, were not delivered possession of the shop sites for which allotment letters had been issued to them. They filed writ petitions. In three of the cases, namely, Ram Saroop Chowdhary v. Jammu Development Authority (OWP No. 602/96 and LPA No. 12/96); Sanjeev Kumar Gupta v. Jammu Development Authority (OWP No. 601/96 LPA No. 15/98) and Rohit Gupta v Jammu Development Authority (OWP No. 430/96 LPA No. 108/1998) the writ petitions filed by them were dismissed. However, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petitions filed by other writ petitioners as mentioned in this judgement and the learned Single Judge gave the following directions: "The net result is that this petition is allowed with the following directions (i) That the Jammu Development Authority would not insist upon the production of proof regarding the fact as to whether the Khokhas were burnt or not. This is because: a. The respondent - authorities in their own communication have admitted the fact that the Khokhas were destroyed in a fire and; b. At this stage, i.e., after more than a decade it is humanly impossible to prove the aforementioned fact. (ii) That so far as requirement of proof regarding electric connections is concerned,that was a condition mentioned in annexure relied upon by the petitioners and, therefore, cannot be insisted upon; (iii) That the petitioner would, however, satisfy the respondents - authorities that they are state subject. On furnishing this satisfaction, the Jammu Development Authority would process the case of the petitioners in accordance with the law. With regard to other petitioners who have not been issued any letter of allotment; it is directed that a scheme be framed. List of all persons who have been displaced be prepared and allotment made serial-wise. 2. Thus, in case petitioners in whose favour the letters of allotments came to be isssued, Jammu Development Authority would take step with a view to give concrete shape and in case of persons who are yet to be settled and accommodated Jammu Development Authority would frame a scheme and take notice of what was said by the Supreme Court of India in various decisions which came to be given in Sodan Singh case from time to time." 3. Ram Saroop chowdhary, Sanjeev Kumar Gupta and Rohit Gupta, being aggrieved of dismissal of their writ petitions, have filed Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 12/1998, 15/1998 and 62/1998 respectively whereas, the Jammu Development Authority, being aggrieved of the judgement of the learned Single Judge in other cases, they have been directed to allot shop sites to the said petitioners without insisting on proof of electric connections etc., have filed Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 19/1998, 140/1999, 313/1998, 315/1998, 316/1998 and 304/2000. 4. Before determining the legality or otherwise of the judgements passed by the learned Single Judge, it is imperative to take notice of the facts in each case. 5. In Ram Saroop Chowdharys case (OWP No. 602/96), the petitioner on 7th October, 1989 made an application to Minister for Housing and Urban Development Department, Jammu and Kashmir,who also happened to be the Chairman of the Jammu Development Authority, for allotment of a shop site at Transport Nagar. The Mininster, Housing and Urban Development, on the application itself, gave approval for the allotment of a shop site out of "discretionary quota of the Minister" on standard terms and conditions. the Vice Chairman, Jammu Development Authority, informed the Mininster through Commissioner-cum-Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department, that there was no discretionary quota of the Minister for allotment of the shop sites at Transport Nagar. As such no action with regard to allotment of shop sites in favour of Ram Saroop Chowdhary could be taken. It appears that the Minister was not satiafied with the response of the Vice Chairman, Jammu Development Authority, so he directed that action be taken in regard to allotment of shop site to Ram Saroop Chowdhary. However, the Jammu development Authority did not allot any shop to Ram Saroop Chowdhary. Though Ram Saroop Chowdhary had deposited an amount of Rs. 10,000.00 through Bank Draft but that was not encashed by the Jammu Development Authority, nor did it execute any lease deed with him. During this period, one Hardev Singh, who had also not been alloted shop site, had filed a writ petition in this Court and, because of the pendency of the said writ petition, Jammu Development Authority showed its inability to execute the lease deed for a shop site in favour of Ram Saroop Chowdhary. During this period, one Hardev Singh, who had also not been alloted shop site, had filed a writ petition in this Court and, because of the pendency of the said writ petition, Jammu Development Authority showed its inability to execute the lease deed for a shop site in favour of Ram Saroop Chowdhary. The Under Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department, vide letter dated 15th September, 1994, directed Vice Chairman, Jammu Development Authority, to pursue the case in the Court vigorously and thereafter, settle the case of Ram Saroop Chowdhary. In 1995 the Jammu Development Authority took a decision to give a go-bye to the allotment of shop sites and instead decided to auction the vacant shop sites and in this regard a public notice was issued. Ram Saroop Chowdhary being aggrieved filed a writ petition. The writ petition was dismissed. Aggrieved of the learnned Single Judges Order, he has filed letters patent Appeal. 6. The case of Sanjeev Kumar Gupta (OWP No. 601/96, LPA No. 15/98) is similar to that of Ram Saroop Chowdhary. He too made an application to the Minister, Housing and Urban Development Department, for allotment of shop site at Transport Nagar. The Minister granted approval to such allotment from discretionary quota, which was not accepted by the Jammu Development Authority. He too filed writ petition, in which he challenged the action of Jammu Development Authority whereby it had decided to auction the vacant shop sites instead of alloting the same. His writ petition was also dismissed and consequently, being aggrieved, he has filed the present appeal. 7. In Rohit Guptas case (OWP No. 430/96, LPA No. 62/1998), the petitioner claimed to have been an unemployed Civil Engineer. He at the behest of some M/s Anand Retreaders, Kunjwani Talab, Jammu, made an application for allotment of 2 Kanals of land at Transport Nagar for setting up a Cold Process Retreading Industry. He claimed to have been issued a letter dated 12th November, 1991 regarding allotment of shop site subject to fulfillment of certain conditions. He also deposited an amount of Rs. 2,400.75 through Demand Draft No. 316626 dated 26.11.1991. He claimed to have been issued a letter dated 12th November, 1991 regarding allotment of shop site subject to fulfillment of certain conditions. He also deposited an amount of Rs. 2,400.75 through Demand Draft No. 316626 dated 26.11.1991. It appears that three shop sites were decided to be allotted to the petitioner but, subsequently, when it was revealed that ineligible candidates had been allotted shop sites, the petitioner was informed that the decision taken for allotment of shop sites in his favour being wrong had been cancelled. The petitioner filed the writ petition for directing the respondents to execute formal documents in pursuance of allotment letter in respect of three shop sites measuring 12 x 15 with him. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by him. In fact, the above three writ petitions have been dismissed by the learned Single Judge by a common judgement dated 13.2.1998. Hence the present appeal. 8. In Hardev Singh v Jammu Development Authority, (OWP No. 1031/92, LPA No. 19/1998) there were as many as 44 writ-petitioners. In the writ petition they alleged that they were earning their livelihood by carrying on petty business as small motor mechanics, second hand spare part sellers and other skilled labour, mostly required for repairs of transport vehicles, in small Khokhas in the Warehouse area. It was submitted that on 3rd March, 1992 a fire incident took place in which propery worth thousands of rupees was destroyed. However, in the writ petition they did not specifically make any averment that their Khokhas were burnt in fire. They alleged that in response to the invitation from the Jammu Development Authority for allotment of shop sites in new Transport Nagar, Jammu, they applied for the same. As many as 27 petitioners applied for shop sites of 12 x 15 dimension and rest of them applied for shop sites of the dimension of 15 x 40. Further, according to them, the petitioners who had applied for shop sites of the dimension of 12x 15 deposited Rs. 800.50 as 15% of the total premium of Rs. 5335/- fixed for such shop sites and those who had applied for shop sites of the dimension of 15 x 40 deposited Rs. 8939.00 as 50% of the total premium of Rs. 17, 878.00 fixed for such shop sites. 800.50 as 15% of the total premium of Rs. 5335/- fixed for such shop sites and those who had applied for shop sites of the dimension of 15 x 40 deposited Rs. 8939.00 as 50% of the total premium of Rs. 17, 878.00 fixed for such shop sites. Thereafter, allotment letter were issued to some of the writ-petitioners whereas some were denied the same. The persons, to whom allotment letter were issued, approached the Jammu Development Authority for handing over possession of shop sites to them, but possession was not delivered to them. The petitioners filed writ petitions claming allotment and possession of the shop sites, for which allotment letter had been issued to them. Against this, the case of Jammu Development Authority was that Transport Nagar was basically a resettlement project financed by the government and executed by Jammu Development Authority. In terms of the Project, only those persons / firms engaged in transport business in Warehouse area such as transport companies, Booking agents, spare parts dealers, service stations, workshops, tyre retreaders, body - builders etc. were to be resettled in Transport Nagar. According to them, the writ-petitioners were neither connected with transport business nor had any Khokha / shop in the Warehouse area, in lieu of which shop sites could be allotted to them at Transport Nagar. According to the Jammu Development Authority, notices were served upon the petitioners to identify the Khokhas and shops at Warehouse area in lieu whereof they had claimed possession of shop sites at Transport Nagar but, instead of identifying the shops / Khokhas to the Committee constituted for the purpose, they approached this Court for the delivery of possession of shop sites to them and to regularize their allotments for which they had no entitlement or claim. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition vide judgement dated 17th February, 1998 with directions as quoted earlier in this judgment. 9. In Inderjeet Singh v. Jammu Development Authority (OWP No. 278/1993, LPA No. 315/1998), the facts involved are similar to the one as in Hardev Singhs case as narrated above. This case was decided by the learned Single Judge in terms of judgement dated 20th July, 1998. 10. In Gurmeet Singh v. State of J&K (OWP No. 417/1994, LPA No. 313/1998), there are two writ-petitioners, the other being Dev Raj. This case was decided by the learned Single Judge in terms of judgement dated 20th July, 1998. 10. In Gurmeet Singh v. State of J&K (OWP No. 417/1994, LPA No. 313/1998), there are two writ-petitioners, the other being Dev Raj. Their case is also that they had Khokhas in the Warehouse area, which got burnt in fire. In their case also the learned Single Judge in terms of judgement dated 20th July, 1998 has directed that they be given shop sites without insisting on production of proof regarding the fact whether the Khokhas were got burnt in fire or not. 11. In Subhash Chander v. Vice Chairman, JDA, (OWP No. 694/1994, LPA No. 316/1998) the allegation of the writ petitioner was that he had been allotted shop site No. 33, Yard No. 4 at New Transport Nagar, Jammu, vide order No. JDA/Tpv-II/19/165-66 dated 30.5.1990 and possession was also handed over to him, but he was not allowed to raise constrution. The stand of Jammu Development Authority in this case was that the allotment made in favour of Subhash Chander was cancelled because a person, who had no competence in the matter, made the allotment unauthorisedly and moreover Subhash Chander had furnished no proof to make him entitled to such allotment. The Jammu Development Authority further stated that Subash Chander was neither connected with the transport business nor possessed any Khokha in the Warehouse area and so he was not entitled to any allotment, especially when decision was taken by the Jammu Development Authority to auction the shop sites instead of allotting the same. The learned Single Judge in terms of order dated 31st July, 1998 made identical directions in the case. 12. In Amar Preet Singh v Jammu Development Authority (OWP No. 776/1995, LPA No. 304/2000) there were as many as 45 writ petitioners. In their writ petition, they alleged that they were owners of Khokhas in the Warehouse area and that the Jammu Development Authority demolished their Khokhas. According to them, the Government, thereafter, under a policy, promised to allot alternate sites at new Transport Nagar to them and, in fact, they submitted their applications, but they were not alloted any shop wheras persons similarly situated were so allotted. According to them, the Government, thereafter, under a policy, promised to allot alternate sites at new Transport Nagar to them and, in fact, they submitted their applications, but they were not alloted any shop wheras persons similarly situated were so allotted. They filed writ petition seeking a direction to the Jammu Development Authority to allot shop sites in their favour in terms of Government policy, but their writ petition was dismissed somewhere in 1995 on the ground that it involved disputed questions of fact as to whether they were in fact Khokha owners whose khokhas were demolished and whether they were entitled to any alternate shop sites at new Transport Nagar. Feeling aggrieved, they filed Letters Patent Appeal, LPA No. 328/96 which was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court on 3.2.1996 with direction that the Jammu Development Authority shall consider the cases of the petitioners, wherever seized of such cases, in the light of the then Government policy or any existing Government order on the subject matter relating to the allotment of the shop sites at New Transport Nagar in favour of the Khokha owners whose Khokhas were demolished at Warehouse and pass appropriate orders in their cases. It appears that their cases were considered but, since they were not able to furnish proof to the satisfaction of the Jammu Development Authority that they had Khokhas in the Warehouse area, therefore, their cases were rejected. In this case the precise case of Jammu Development Authority was that they submitted their applications in the year 1995 when the process of shifting of transporters etc. from Warehouse area to Transport Nagar had already completed. It was stated that in case the said petitioners were functioning in the Warehouse area, then they would have figured in the reports of the successive committees. Since they did not produce any proof of their having Khokhas in the Warehouse area,nor they had preferred any application before the Committee, which had been consituted to make verifications, therefore, they were not entitled to allotment of shop sites at Transport Nagar. The Jammu Development Authority vehemently denied that their Khokhas were demolished. These petitioners filed a fresh writ petition that was allowed by the learned Single Judge in terms of judgement dated 31st July, 1998 and in their case also the Jammu Development Authority has been directed to allot shop sites at Transport Nagar to them. The Jammu Development Authority vehemently denied that their Khokhas were demolished. These petitioners filed a fresh writ petition that was allowed by the learned Single Judge in terms of judgement dated 31st July, 1998 and in their case also the Jammu Development Authority has been directed to allot shop sites at Transport Nagar to them. 13. In Kohli Transport Carriers Pvt. Ltd. (OWP No. 686/91, LPA No. 140/1999) the facts are that one Inder Singh was Managing Director of M/s Kohli Transport Carriers Pvt Ltd. He was also the Managing Partner of another concern, which was a partnership concern, namely, M/s Kohli Transport Co. He on behalf of the Company as well as the partnership firm was negotiating for the grant of shop sites in Transport Nagar for both the concerns. M/s Kohli Transport Carriers Pvt. Ltd. was held entitled to four sites of one and a half Kanal each whearas M/s Kohli Transport Co. was held entitled to allotment of three sites of one and a half Kanal each. It appears that by mistake a lease deed in regard to three plots came to be executed between M/s Kohli Transport Carriers Pvt. Ltd. and Jammu Development Authority, although it was held entitled to four sites. In respect of M/s Kohli Transport Co. partnership concern, which was held entitled to three sites; lease deed for four sites came to be executed. Inder Singh executed both the lease deeds - in one case as Managing Director of M/s Kohli Transport Carriers Pvt. Ltd. and, in other case, as Manager partner of the partnership firm M/s Kohli Transport Co. After keeping quiet fot nearly two years of the execution of the lease deeds, M/s Kohli Transport Carriers Pvt. Ltd. through its Managing Director, Inder Singh Kohli, filed OWP No. 686/91 stating therein that it was held entitled to four sites whereas it has been given only three sites and so it is entitled to one more site. After keeping quiet fot nearly two years of the execution of the lease deeds, M/s Kohli Transport Carriers Pvt. Ltd. through its Managing Director, Inder Singh Kohli, filed OWP No. 686/91 stating therein that it was held entitled to four sites whereas it has been given only three sites and so it is entitled to one more site. The Jammu Development Authority submitted that the two concerns were entitled to seven sites in all and, in fact, seven sites have been allotted to them and so on further allotment could be made in favour of M/s Kohli Transport Carriers Pvt. Ltd. The learned Single Judge, however, came to the conclusion that the two concerns were separate and distinct from each other and M/s Kohli Transport Carrier Pvt. Ltd. having been found entitled to four sites, was to be allotted another site and, accordingly, in terms of judgment dates 16th February, 1999, direction has been given to the Jammu Development Authority to allot one more site to the Company. It has been observed that in case the Jammu Development Authority chooses, it may cancel the site, which was alloted to the partnership concern in excess of its entitlement. 14. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have carefully gone through the record of this case. 15. Having noticed the facts of each case, the point which arises for consideration in most of these cases is whether the writ-petitioners are entitled to allotment of shop sites in Transport Nagar without insisting on proof of their having Khokhas or shops in the Warehouse area. 16. As noticed above, Transport Nagar near Railway complex, Jammu City, was developed for accommodating all those persons, firms and companies who were engaged in the business of transport companies, booking agents, spare parts dealers, workshops, tyre retreaders, body builders ect. and had their shops in Warehouse area. It appears that a Committee headed by Divisional Commissioner, Jammu, was constituted to identify such persons, firms and companies as were required to be alloted such commercial sites at Transport Nagar. The Committee identified such transporters, workshop owners, spare part dealers, etc. and submitted its report to the concerned authorities. and had their shops in Warehouse area. It appears that a Committee headed by Divisional Commissioner, Jammu, was constituted to identify such persons, firms and companies as were required to be alloted such commercial sites at Transport Nagar. The Committee identified such transporters, workshop owners, spare part dealers, etc. and submitted its report to the concerned authorities. Subsequent thereto, the Government issued order No. 151-UD of 1987 dated 8th May, 1987, first four paragraphs whereof are quoted hereunder : "Sanction is accorded to the :- (i) allotment of booking agencies of the standerd size at Rs. 1.50 lakhs per Kanal be given to such of the transporters who have already been identified by the Committee headed by the Divisional Commissioner and on the basis of first come first serve. This pattern has to be adopted as an incentive for people to come forward at the earliest. (ii) The same price may be utilized for negotiating while handing over the workshop sites, spare parts sites and commission agents who have to be shifted from warehouse and who have already been identified by the same Committee mentioned above. (iii) Any surplus sites over and above those already identified as workshop, spare parts shops / commission agents sites or even the booking agencies shall be auctioned. (iv) If any further application comes stating that their names were left out, the Jammu Development Authority will refer the cases to the said Committee and if the Committee recommends their names, same pattern shall be followed." 17. From a bare reading of the aforesaid Government order, it is manifest that surplus sites over and above those already identified prior to 1987 had to be auctioned. However, since some of the persons were carrying on business in Khokhas in Warehouse area raised on State land, they too were to be alloted shop sites in the new Transport Nagar. This also included those persons whose Khokhas got burnt in the year 1992. The Jammu Development Authority in order to identify persons who had Khokhas or whose Khokhas got burnt in fire in the Warehouse area constituted Committee of officers who, after proper verification, recommended their cases to the Jammu Development Authority for allotment of shop sites. This also included those persons whose Khokhas got burnt in the year 1992. The Jammu Development Authority in order to identify persons who had Khokhas or whose Khokhas got burnt in fire in the Warehouse area constituted Committee of officers who, after proper verification, recommended their cases to the Jammu Development Authority for allotment of shop sites. Large number of bogus and ineligible person who did not have any Khokha in the Warehouse area, managed to obtain allotment letters in their favour without furnishing proof of existence of such Khokhas in Warehouse area. Though in some cases, allotment letter were issued before the possession could be delivered to them, but they were asked to give proof like electricity bills etc. to substantiate that they, in fact, had Khokhas in Warehouse area. They instead of satisfying the Committee set up by the Jammu Development Authority in this regard filed writ petitions.We have carefully gone through the record of the writ petitions and find that no proof, whatsoever, like electriccity bills or any other genuine document has been annexed with any of the writ petitions to show that any of the writ petitioners had a Khokha in the Warehouse area. 18. The new Transport Nagar was financed by the State Government and developed by the Jammu Development Authority as a rehabilitation project and, being a public property, was required to be dealt with for public purpose and in the public interest only. The shop sites were not to be allotted without examining and scrutinizing the cases of the writ petitioners to ascertain fully as to whether they had Khokhas in the Warehouse area and, consequently, under the Policy of the Government, whether they were entitled to allotment of shop sites in the new Transport Nagar. Unless the petitioners made out a case that they had either shops or Khokhas in the warehouse area at the time when the policy was laid down and the original scheme was framed, they cannot claim parity with those who have been alloted shop sites etc. at Transport Nagar. Once the Committee found that none of these petitioners had either a shop or a Khokha in Warehouse area, none of their right were violated, moreso a right for the enforcement of which a writ petition could lie. 19. at Transport Nagar. Once the Committee found that none of these petitioners had either a shop or a Khokha in Warehouse area, none of their right were violated, moreso a right for the enforcement of which a writ petition could lie. 19. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that once allotment letters had been issued, it would be taken to be the satisfaction of the Jammu Development Authority of the entitlement of the writ petitioners and the Court will not go into the question whether they were entitled to allotment or not. This submission cannot be accepted for the simple reason that mere issuance of allotment letters would not and did not confer any right on the petitioners to claim allotment or possession of such shop sites. Such allotment letters also would not constitute extension of any promise or assurance to any of the petitioners in regard to the allotment of such site to him. Plea of promissory estoppel is, therefore, misplaced. At the cost of repetition it may be mentioned here that the sites were to be allotted only as a measure of resettlement to persons who had any shop or Khokha at Warehouse, not otherwise. Therefore, unless the Jammu Development Authority were fully satisfied that any individual claimant was genuinely entitled to the site under the policy of the Government, any correspondence exchanged between it and any person would not bind the Jammu Development Authority to allot a site in favour of any such person. Further, if the allotments had been made without any enquiry and verification, the court would certainly interfere with such allotments because such allotments would be arbitrary and, in any case, against the resettlement policy of the Government. If on enquiry, an order of allotment was prima facie vitiated on the ground of absence of any material or verification by the concerned competent authority that had issued the allotment letter, then denovo enquiry was necessitated to ascertain the truth. And if any such denovo enquiry was undertaken by the Jammu Development Authority to verify the entitlement of writ petitioners to such sites, such action would be rather fair and, in any case, it cannot be said to be arbitrary or without jurisdition. 20. And if any such denovo enquiry was undertaken by the Jammu Development Authority to verify the entitlement of writ petitioners to such sites, such action would be rather fair and, in any case, it cannot be said to be arbitrary or without jurisdition. 20. As regards those of the petitioners / appellants whose applications were endorsed by the Minister, Housing and Urban Development Department, it would be suffice to say that no fault can be found with the refusal of the Jammu Development Authority to abide by the approval for allotment granted by the Minister. It was a resettlement project in respect of those persons who had their business establishments in Warehouse area. The Minister had sought to carve out an exception to the laid down policy and decision of the Government and that too without any basis and reasons. The appellants 1 and 2 herein have failed to show that they had any connection with any such transport business and that too in Warehouse area. We are of the firm view that no exception can be taken to the judgement of the learned Single Judge passed in their case. Similarly, appellant No. 3 was not entitled to any such allotment since, admittedly, he did not have any transport or allied business establishment in Warehouse area. He sought the allotment on self-employment scheme. The instant scheme was not formulated in pursuance of any such policy of the Government. The Jammu Development Authority was further within its powers to cancel the wrongful allotment in respect of any person who was not entitled thereto under the scheme. 21. Faced with this situation, learned counsel appearing on behalf of writ petitioners submitted that it would be just to direct the Jammu Development Authority to give another opportunity to the writ-petitioners to furnish proof and in case any petitioner is able to furnish proof, he may be directed to be allotted such commercial sites. We do not find any merit in this submission of the learned counsel for the writ-petitioners. The exercise of verification was undertaken by the Jammu Development Authority by setting up Committees for this purpose from time to time and the petitioners had ample opportunity to furnish proof before such Committees but they having failed to do so, this Court will not direct the Jammu Development Authority to re-start a process which was started some 19 years back. And, in any case, as already noticed, the petitioners have not produced any document before this Court by way of annexure to these writ petitions to show that they had a genuine case to plead before the Jammu Development Authority. Therefore, any such direction would be a restart of a futile exercise. 22. There is yet another factor. In terms of Government order dated 8th May, 1987, vide paragraph (iii) thereof, it was provided that any surplus sites over and above those already identified as workshop, spare parts shops / commission agents sites or even the booking agencies shall be auctioned. Since after the initial identification, on account of the fire incident, the Jammu Development Authority had to conduct a fresh verification in respect of Khokha owners, implementation of the decision to auction surplus sites was delayed. It was somewhere in 1995, when it came to a conclusion that all genuine persons had been allotted commercial sites that the Jammu Development Authority decided to implement the aforesaid police of the Government laid down vide item (iii) of Government order dated 8th may, 1987. This decision was not something new introduced by the Jammu Development Authority, but was laid down by the Government as far back as in may, 1987. Therefore, no fault can be found with such a decision of the Jammu Development Authority to follow the uniform policy of putting such sites to public auction, especially so when the petitioners have not proved their case either before the Jammu Development Authority or this court. In this view of the matter, we are of the view that the Jammu Development Authority had not acted arbitrarily in requiring the petitioners to go through the procedure of public auction for allotment of the sites, if any, left in the Transport Nagar. 23. As regards the case of M/s Kohli Transport Carriers Pvt. Ltd., we are of the view that the learned Single Judge was not justified in directing Jammu Development Authority to allot another plot to the said Company. As already noticed, the Private Limited Company as well as the partnership concern were being managed by Inderjeet Singh who executed lease deeds on behalf of both, the Company as well as the partnership concern as Managing Director and Managing partners respectively with the Jammu Development authority. As already noticed, the Private Limited Company as well as the partnership concern were being managed by Inderjeet Singh who executed lease deeds on behalf of both, the Company as well as the partnership concern as Managing Director and Managing partners respectively with the Jammu Development authority. At that time he was well aware of the entitlement of the Company as well as that of partnership concern. He having accepted the allotment and executed the lease deeds respectively for three sites and four sites in favour of the Company and the partnership concern respectively and having kept quiet for two years cannot be allowed to turn back and say that the Company was entitled to allotment of another site. The Company and the concern were entitled to seven plots/sites and seven plots/sites have been allotted to them. Therefore, the Jammu Development Authority was not obliged to allot any further plot of land or site in their favour. 24. Apart from what has been discussed on merits above, we are also of the firm opinion that the learned Single Judge committed an error in law in entertaining the writ petitions and giving directions since the writ petitions involved disputed questions of fact such as whether the petitioners had Khokhas and whether their Khokhas were burnt in fire etc. Such questions of fact could not have been determined by the writ court in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 25. In view of the above LPA Nos. 19/1998, 140/1999, 313/1998, 315/1998, 316/1998 and 304/2000, filed by the Jammu Development Authority are allowed and consequently the judgements passed by the learned Single Judge in those cases are set - aside. In consequence, the respective writ petitions are dismissed. LPA Nos. 12/1998, 15/1998, 62/2000, filed by Ram Saroop Chowdhary, Sanjeev Kumar Gupta and Rohit Gupta, being without merit, are dismissed and the judgement of the Single Judge in those cases is up-held. 26. Some of the writ petitioners have stated that they have sent Bank Drafts to the Jammu Development Authority on account of the premium amount. The Development Authority has categorically stated that it did not encash any of such Bank Drafts. Therefore, the petitioners shall be entitled to return of the drafts etc. by which they have sought to deposit premium amounts with the Jammu Development Authority. The Development Authority has categorically stated that it did not encash any of such Bank Drafts. Therefore, the petitioners shall be entitled to return of the drafts etc. by which they have sought to deposit premium amounts with the Jammu Development Authority. It is, however, made clear that they shall not be entitled to any interest since the Drafts have not been encashed by the Jammu Development Authority. Further, it is directed that, if any plot of land or shop site has been kept reserved in pursuance of any direction passed in these matters, the same shall stand vacated. No order as to costs.