Judgment K.Kannan, J. 1 The petitioners were owners of some property in Karnal had lost a piece of property for extent of 1240 per square yard acquired by the Government under the provisions of the Punjab Town Improvement Act in fulfillment of development of a Scheme No.37 for the area of Old Subzi Mandi, Karnal. In terms of Karnal Improvement Trust Land Disposal Rules, 1970 , a local displaced person means a person whose property had been acquired by the Trust for the acquisition of any scheme under the Punjab Town Improvement Act. On the subject of allotment of some shops, which had been proposed in an alternative place, the petitioners had filed C.W.P. No.2124 of 1976 before this Court and a Division Bench of this Honble Court passed an order on 13.05.1976 on the basis of a common understanding between both parties. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had conceded that five heirs of the deceased-Tara Chand whose land had been acquired would be entitled to one plot each for the shop under the Rules and further that the heirs would also be entitled to compensation of the whole of the land belonging to the deceased. 2 All the petitioners, in terms of the undertaking given by the Court had also been allotted five plots in an extent of 113 per square yards. The allotment came through an agreement signed between the parties on 16.08.1984. Under the terms of the agreement, the Karnal Improvement Trust had received Rs.2500/- and another Rs.2500/- was obligated to be deposited after the construction of the shop. The cost of the price of the shop payable was put in terms of the decision of the Honble High Court in C.W.P. No.2124 of 1976. Since the High Court judgment in the above case refers to the allotmerit of shop as per the Rules, the price has also to be understood in the context of how Rules provide for fixation of the price. 3 The dispute in the case is on account of the fact that after the allotment of the plots, the respondents were also demanding apart from the cost of development charges a reserve/concessional price, which the Administrator had fixed at Rs.38,084/- for each of the plots. 3 The dispute in the case is on account of the fact that after the allotment of the plots, the respondents were also demanding apart from the cost of development charges a reserve/concessional price, which the Administrator had fixed at Rs.38,084/- for each of the plots. The challenge to the demand for the concessional price arises by the fact that in respect of every other allottee of shops, the property had been allotted free of cost for the property lost to them, but an amount in excess of the development charges was being demanded only from them. The demand for payment was also untenable, according to the petitioners since the Rules only provide for collection of a price, which shall be equivalent to the value of the extent of the property, which is acquired from the owner. To understand the tenability of the contention of the petitioner, we have to therefore look into the relevant provisions of the Improvement Trust Land Disposal Rules of 1976. Section 2(c) defines as "Local displaced person" means a person whose property has been acquired by the Trust for the execution of the scheme or who has been a tenant of a property in the scheme for a period of not less than one year prior to publication by the Trust of the notice under Section 38 of the Act and continued as such till that property is acquired by the Trust." Section 2(h) defines as "Reserve place means a price of the land to the Trust i.e. estimated cost of acquisition plus development charges on which a site may be sold by allotment to a local displaced person." 4 Although it is pleaded on behalf of the petitioners that they shall be offered the shops free of costs and no more than the development charges shall be collected, in my view, such a contention cannot be urged, for the petitioners are bound by the terms of the agreement. The petitioners have bound themselves to pay the price of the property as per the Rules. The High Court decision refers to fixation of price as per the Rules. The Rules referred to a payment of a reserve price for a local displaced person. The reserved prices means the cost of acquisition of the property equivalent to the extent that each of the five allottees have obtained. The High Court decision refers to fixation of price as per the Rules. The Rules referred to a payment of a reserve price for a local displaced person. The reserved prices means the cost of acquisition of the property equivalent to the extent that each of the five allottees have obtained. It is an admitted case that the petitioners have been allotted five plots. As per the Rules, therefore, the petitioners would be liable to pay only an amount equivalent to the cost of acquisition of an extent of property equivalent to the extent that the petitioners obtained by way of shops. In this case, the extent of the shops fall in 113 square yards and the petitioners shall be liable to pay the cost of acquisition of 113 square yards of the property that was acquired from the petitioners. 5 On the issue of compensation itself relating to the property acquired from the petitioners, the matter appears to be still pending adjudication before this Court. The petitioners have been granted compensation only for an extent of 641 square yards and the petitioners seem to have made a complaint about the fact that the compensation of property to an extent of 623 square yards had not been granted to them but the respondents contest the claim on the ground that the said extent was consumed for development works and hence no compensation was payable. The petitioners also appear to have objections as regards some certain observations of the Reference Court in determining the value of the land over which the present shops have been constructed as not falling within the jurisdiction of the Reference Court. 6 On the attack made by the petitioners against impugned notice that they do not reflect the cost of acquisition of similar extent of property, which the petitioners have obtained now by allotment of shops, the contention of learned counsel for the respondents is that the petitioners have already received whole of the compensation amount and they cannot be allotted the shop free of cost. He has also contended that the petitioners cannot compare themselves to persons who have been offered free allotments since several other considerations such as the indigency of the persons who have lost the property, the shop owners who were not owners of the property etc. went into reckoning for allotments for others. He has also contended that the petitioners cannot compare themselves to persons who have been offered free allotments since several other considerations such as the indigency of the persons who have lost the property, the shop owners who were not owners of the property etc. went into reckoning for allotments for others. The allotments were made on the basis of economic loss suffered by persons, who had already lost some shops and the petitioners who have received sumptuous compensation are bound to pay the value as determined by the Trust. It was further urged that the agreement itself contemplates the payment of price for the shops and therefore, a free allotment as envisaged by the petitioners cannot be granted. It was further contended on behalf of the respondents that the petitioners were themselves not in occupation of the shops and they were in enjoyment of the property by letting them out on rent and the tenants have been already allotted some shops. The petitioners, who were now favoured with additional allotments by virtue of the order of the High Court cannot also demand the allotment of the shops free of cost. 7 The last contention of the respondent that the petitioners tenants had been offered shops free of cost is disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner and contends that there is no such averment in the reply statement. The argument advanced by learned counsel for the respondent as regards the alleged free allotment of shops newly constructed to the tenants of the petitioners is, therefore, rejected and I proceed to consider the price at which the petitioners could obtain the shops now allotted to them. 8 The petitioners shall become liable to pay at the same rate at which the price is fixed as compensation to the petitioners in the land acquisition case, which is now pending before this Court in the appeal against the award passed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The cost of acquisition would include apart from the market value as determined by the Court, the component of solatium and interest. The cost of acquisition would include apart from the market value as determined by the Court, the component of solatium and interest. For 113 square yards of the property which are now allotted to the petitioners, since it is claimed that the petitioners have already received the entire compensation as determined by the Collector and as modified by the Reference Court, any enhancement of compensation determined by this Court in the appeal shall be adjusted against the amount payable by the petitioners. If there is no enhancement to the compensation and the appeal results in affirmation of the award already passed, the amount already determined as the award of the Reference Court shall become payable by the petitioners. 9 The impugned orders are set aside and the price that the petitioners shall be directed to pay will follow the decision of this Court and the payment shall be made in the manner referred to above in the light of above observation. 10 The writ petition is disposed of on the above terms.