Judgment Viney Mittal and j. JJ. 1. The petitioner has approached this Court for issuance of directions to the respondents to allot him an alternative site in lieu of her land/house having been acquired. The claim of the petitioner has been contested by the respondents. In the written statement filed by them, it has been stated that the petitioner was not entitled to allotment of an alternative site, inasmuch as, the land which had been acquired by the respondents, atta Chakki was being run. The respondents have maintained that the policy of rehabilitation was only applicable to the residential accommodation. In view of the stand taken by the respondents, we are satisfied that no case for interference by this Court is made out. Dismissed.