S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J. ( 1 ) THE writ petitioner has claimed a direction to the respondent to allot and hand over possession of a developed plot measuring 250 square yards in the south Zone. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that affidavit was prepared and could not be filed. It is submitted that despite his best efforts, the petitioner has not got in touch with the counsel. ( 2 ) THE undisputed facts are that petitioner's lands were acquired by one of the large scale acquisition notification issued by the then Delhi administration, for the purpose of planned development of Delhi in 1962. The petitioner claims that he was determined to be entitled to an alternative plot on 13. 5. 1980 by the Delhi Administration, namely, respondents 2 and 3 (hereafter referred to as ?govt. of NCT? ). It is contended on his behalf that his two brothers, whose lands were also acquired by the same notification had applied along with him for an alternative plot and their cases were recommended by the govt. of NCT (like him) in 1980. It is claimed that they were handed over possession of the plot in 1980. ( 3 ) THE petitioner claims to have repeatedly, though unsuccessfully, approached the DDA for handing over possession of the plot before he approached this Court in these proceedings in the year 1992. During the course of hearing, on 16. 11. 2004, the petitioner was given an opportunity to file an affidavit disclosing the file numbers in respect of the allotment of alternative plots to his brothers and if possible produce copy of the recommendation letter issued by the Govt. of NCT. Two weeks time was granted for the purpose. On the subsequent five dates of hearing, the petitioner sought for and was granted extension of time. However, no affidavit was forthcoming; the same is the position even today. ( 4 ) THE respondents have in their counter affidavit averred inter alia that the petitioner filed his application for alternative plot only in 1979. Further to the large scale notification and the policy of NCT of Delhi enabling allotment of alternative plot, a cut off date had been put in place. It is averred that the public notices were widely advertised and eligible persons were invited to apply by 15th December, 1963. The Govt. Further to the large scale notification and the policy of NCT of Delhi enabling allotment of alternative plot, a cut off date had been put in place. It is averred that the public notices were widely advertised and eligible persons were invited to apply by 15th December, 1963. The Govt. of NCT therefore avers that since the petitioner admittedly applied in 1979, he could not have been granted allotment and that the issuance of the letter on 3. 5. 1980 was by inadvertence. It is claimed that the matter was subsequently examined and the mistake was rectified after the respondent found that the petitioner's application was time barred. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that he has in his possession copy of a letter dated 3. 5. 1980 (without further mention of the possession and date of possession) relating to the allotment of an alternative plot to Ram Kishan, the petitioner's brother. He relied upon the averment in para 3 of the writ petition to say that Ram Kishan and Jai Kishan, the two brothers, were allotted residential plot in lieu of their acquired land in safadarjung Enclave and Kalkaji Extension sometime in 1982-83. ( 6 ) IT has been repeatedly held by the Court and finally declared by the full Bench in Ramanand v. Union of India, AIR 1994 Delhi 25 that the claim for an alternative plot would have to conform to existing policies of the dda/government of NCT. After 1981, the claim would be as per the rules. Here, the petitioner had applied for a plot in 1979. Although, prima facie there seems to be some merit in the contention of the respondent that he had applied late, that alone cannot, in my opinion, be the determinative factor if indeed the petitioner's brothers had also applied like him in 1979 or after the cut off date but were yet considered and eventually granted alternative plots. However, one aspect which cannot be lost sight of is that the petitioner approached the Court in 1992. Laches, by itself could have defeated the right of petitioner if it was eventually found that his brothers were given the plot in 1982-1983 on their having applied in 1979-1980. Yet this Court entertained the petition in 1992 and later issued Rule. Therefore, laches alone cannot be the basis of rejecting the petitioner's claim. Laches, by itself could have defeated the right of petitioner if it was eventually found that his brothers were given the plot in 1982-1983 on their having applied in 1979-1980. Yet this Court entertained the petition in 1992 and later issued Rule. Therefore, laches alone cannot be the basis of rejecting the petitioner's claim. However, in the event it is found by the respondents that such allotment was made, the petitioner can nevertheless not insist that he should be given a plot as per the policy existing in 1982-83. If at all, the allotment is to be made, that would be on the basis of the prevailing policy, as on date. ( 7 ) IN view of the above discussion, the writ petitioner shall approach the respondents within the next four months with particulars of the allotment made in favour of Ram Kishan and Jai Kishan and authentic documentary evidence. If it is found that the claims are genuine and that such persons had indeed made an application in 1979 and are verified to be petitioner's brothers, and were similarly situated as the petitioner, the respondents shall pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. The writ petition is disposed off in the above terms. Rule discharged.