JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ashok Bhushan, J.—These three writ petitions raising common questions of law, have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. 2. Writ Petition No. 55845 of 2009 (Mr. Puran Singh and others v. State of U.P. and others) is being treated as leading writ petition in which counter-affidavit, supplementary counter-affidavit, rejoinder-affidavit and supplementary rejoinder-affidavit have been filed. It is sufficient to refer to pleadings of the aforesaid writ petition for deciding all the three writ petitions. 3. We have heard Sri N.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Ramendra Pratap Singh appearing for respondent No. 2 and learned Standing Counsel. 4. Brief facts, as emerge from pleadings of the parties in Writ Petition No. 55845 of 2009 are; the petitioners claim to be resident of village Harola, district Gautam Budh Nagar. The land of father of petitioner No. 1 being Khasra No. 823 area 0-16-13 was acquired by the respondents. Similarly the land of father of petitioner No. 2 being Khasra No. 143 and 7 other plots was acquired by the respondents in the year 1976. The compensation of the land was received by the father of both the petitioners. The respondent No. 2 was constituted under the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Area Development Act, 1976 for development of area as notified by the State Government. The respondent No. 2, Authority, is empowered to sell, lease or otherwise transfer by way of auction, allotment or otherwise any land or building belonging to it in the industrial development area. Several schemes for allotment of plots of different categories were floated by respondent No. 2. In the present case, it is sufficient to refer to two schemes, namely, NOIDA Residential Plots Scheme-2004(1) and NOIDA Residential Plots Scheme for Prescribed Reserved Categories-2006(1). In 2004(1) Scheme the brother of petitioner No. 1 Prem Singh had applied for allotment of residential plot. After certain litigation regarding draw of lots with regard to Scheme 2004(1) final draw of lots was declared on 8th November, 2008. The 2006(1) Scheme was initiated in which both the petitioners have made applications for allotment as heirs of deceased tenure holders. On 26th October, 2006 names of eligible applicants were declared in which names of both the petitioners were included as eligible applicants. The 2006(1) Scheme was initiated in which both the petitioners have made applications for allotment as heirs of deceased tenure holders. On 26th October, 2006 names of eligible applicants were declared in which names of both the petitioners were included as eligible applicants. A writ petition being Writ Petition No. 60412 of 2006 was filed in this Court challenging the eligibility in which this Court passed an interim order on 7th November, 2006 staying the further process which writ petition was ultimately disposed of on 19th February, 2009 directing the Authority to consider the representations of the petitioners of that writ petition. A news item was published in the newspaper by the Authority notifying the names of applicants found eligible with details of those applicants who on inquiry were not found eligible by giving brief reason for ineligibility. The notice further stated that any objection with regard to above be submitted alongwith the documents by 12th July, 2009. Against the name of petitioner No. 1 (Puran Singh) it was mentioned that his brother Prem Singh who was legal heir of Kunwar Singh has been allotted a plot in Residential Scheme 2004(1). Puran Singh, the petitioner No. 1 was stated to be ineligible on the ground that only one of the legal heirs was entitled for allotment. Against petitioner No. 2 it was mentioned that applicant Dalchand and his brother Ram Kumar were heirs of original tenure holder Horam Singh. Ram Kumar, the brother of Dalchand (petitioner No. 2), was allotted residential plot under the Scheme 2004(1) and only one heir being entitled for allotment, the applicant Dalchand was said to be ineligible. After considering the objection, final list was declared on 5th September, 2009 in which both the petitioners were held to be ineligible. The second stage of allotment was undertaken on 1st October, 2009. The petitioners being aggrieved by non allotment of plots in the Scheme 2006(1) have filed the present writ petition praying for following relief : “i. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned draw of the second stage held on 1.10.2009 by the Authority annexed as Annexure-P-1 to this petition being capricious, illegal, unwarranted and contrary to law. ii. ii. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Authority to conduct the fresh draw of lot of the second stage amongst the successful applicants list drawn by the Authority on 6.11.2006 as per the terms and conditions of the scheme.” 5. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondent No. 2. It has been stated in the counter-affidavit that interpreting the Scheme 2006(1) in a manner so as to allow more than one allotment under the same Khata entry till all the entries against the Khata are satisfied shall be inequitable and disastrous to the object of compensating other villagers whose land had been acquired. It has been stated in the counter-affidavit that only one of the legal heirs of a tenure holder is entitled for allotment even if the tenure holder has more than one Khata which were acquired. It has been submitted that brothers of both the petitioners having been allotted land in the Residential Scheme 2004(1), the petitioners were rightly held ineligible for allotment. It has been stated in the supplementary counter-affidavit that an applicant can claim only that right which is available to him under the terms of the said scheme and reference of previous scheme is irrelevant and not meaningful. It has further been stated that in the event one legal heir of a person whose land had been acquired, has been allotted a plot, then other legal heirs would be ineligible for allotment in the preferential category. They would, however, be eligible to apply under the general category in accordance with the terms and conditions of the scheme. Reliance was also placed on Condition No. 25(ii) of 2006(1) Scheme which provided that Chief Executive Officer has right to interpret the terms and conditions of the scheme. It has further been stated that after the initial list of the applicants in the 2006(1) scheme was prepared it came to the notice that number of applicants whose brothers were applicants in 2004(1) scheme were allotted land, hence list was examined and objections were invited. It was pleaded that as per policy only one legal heir was entitled and if any specific case of any ineligible applicant comes into the notice of the Authority, the same shall be inquired. 6. It was pleaded that as per policy only one legal heir was entitled and if any specific case of any ineligible applicant comes into the notice of the Authority, the same shall be inquired. 6. The petitioners filed a rejoinder-affidavit and reply to the supplementary counter-affidavit in which certain details of heirs of tenure holders where more than one heir were allotted plots, have been given in paragraph 3. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners in support of the writ petition has submitted that under the 2006(1) Scheme there was no prohibition of a legal heir to apply for allotment even if any other legal heir of a tenure holder has already been allotted a plot. He submits that only restriction was that only one of the legal heirs of a deceased tenure holder shall be allotted a plot in the scheme which was contemplated to be decided after draw of lots among legal heirs, similar to the procedure as prescribed for co-tenure holders. Learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to Clause II(D) of the terms and conditions for allotment of residential plots under the 2006(1) Scheme. He further submits that more than one legal heirs were actually allotted plot by the Authority details of which have already been given in reply to the supplementary counter-affidavit, hence the petitioners cannot be held to be ineligible for allotment. It is further submitted that petitioners’ were issued necessary certificate by the Authority for eligibility and their names were also published as eligible applicants by the Authority itself, hence now the Authority cannot contend that petitioners are ineligible. 8. Sri Ramendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2, refuting the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners, contends that Authority has been pursuing the policy of making allotment to only one of the legal heirs of a tenure holder and if more than one of the legal heirs have been allotted plot, they would become ineligible. Both under 2004(1) and 2006(1) Schemes same policy was applied. He submits that the respondents have applied same policy uniformly to all the applicants which is apparent from the news item (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) dated 5th July, 2009. Both under 2004(1) and 2006(1) Schemes same policy was applied. He submits that the respondents have applied same policy uniformly to all the applicants which is apparent from the news item (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) dated 5th July, 2009. It is further submitted that brothers of the petitioners having been allotted plots in the Residential Scheme 2004(1), the petitioners were not eligible for allotment and no error was committed by the respondents in not allotting any plot to the petitioners. 9. We have considered the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 10. Before we come to the terms and conditions of the Scheme 2006(1), it is useful to refer to the earlier scheme, namely, 2004(1) in which it is claimed that plots have been allotted to the brothers of the petitioners. The Residential Scheme 2004(1) consisted of two categories of applicants i.e. 50% for general and 50% for prescribed reserved category. Category IV was for villager applicants. It is useful to refer to sub-clause (D) of Clause II. Sub-clauses (v), (vi) and (ix) of Clause (D) are quoted below : (D) ELIGIBLE VILLAGER WHOSE LAND HAS BEEN ACQUIRED BY NOIDA: Such bona fide original tenure holder who fulfills the following conditions shall be eligible : (i) ..... (ii) ..... (iii) ..... (iv) ..... (v) In case where the original tenure holder whose land has been acquired and such person has expired, only one heir of such person shall be eligible to apply and seek allotment of a Residential plot in this Scheme. Under this category all co-tenures who have not been allotted any Residential plot in earlier residential schemes, will be eligible to apply. Selection of one final co-tenures will be done through draw of lots at the level of Authority. (vi) With regard to the eligibility of legal heirs, under the provisions of Section 171-172 of U.P.Z.A.L.R. Act 1950, the eligibility of seniority legal heirs will be determined, after the death of tenure/co-tenure holder. (vii) ..... (viii) ..... (ix) Only one of the legal heirs of the deceased person whose land has been acquired under one or more co-tenures, shall be eligible to apply under this scheme. ...........” The 2006(1) Scheme was floated only for prescribed reserved category. One of the reserved categories was “Eligible Villager Whose Land Has Been Acquired By NOIDA”. (vii) ..... (viii) ..... (ix) Only one of the legal heirs of the deceased person whose land has been acquired under one or more co-tenures, shall be eligible to apply under this scheme. ...........” The 2006(1) Scheme was floated only for prescribed reserved category. One of the reserved categories was “Eligible Villager Whose Land Has Been Acquired By NOIDA”. Sub-clauses (v), (vi) and (ix) of Clause (D), which are relevant, are as follows : “(D) ELIGIBLE VILLAGER WHOSE LAND HAS BEEN ACQUIRED BY NOIDA: Such bona fide original tenure holder who fulfils the following conditions shall be eligible : (i) ..... (ii) ..... (iii) ..... (iv) ..... (v) All the co-tenure holders of villager category who have not been allotted plot earlier, will be eligible to apply. The manual draw will be done amongst all co-tenure holders to choose one tenure holder for allotment of plot. (vi) The legal heirs of original tenure holders whose land has been acquired shall be eligible for allotment of Residential Plots. The eligibility of legal heirs shall be determined as per Section 171-172 of UPZALR Act, 1950. (vii) ..... (viii) ..... (ix) If the deceased tenure holders have separate Khasra/Khata, in that case also only one legal heir will be eligible for allotment of plot. ...........” 11. The 2006 Scheme provided for terms and conditions for allotment of residential plots. A note was provided after Clause 4 which was to the following effect : “NOTE: i. In case of receipt of more than one application from one applicant under this scheme, all the applications of such applicant shall be summarily rejected and money deposited will be forfeited. ii. Incomplete application form shall be summarily rejected. iii. Applicant must mention the name of Bank, Bank A/c. No. and PAN Number in the application Form. iv. Those applicants who have already applied in earlier Residential Plot Scheme 2004(1), can also apply in this scheme but in case the allotment of plot is made, under this Scheme, the application under Scheme 2004(1) will automatically be cancelled and balance registration money of Rs. 1000/- shall be refunded as per rules.” 12. A format and application form was also provided for in the brochure. Clause 12 of the application form, which is relevant, is to the following effect : “12. For villagers whose land has been acquired on or before 1.4.1997 for development of Noida. 1000/- shall be refunded as per rules.” 12. A format and application form was also provided for in the brochure. Clause 12 of the application form, which is relevant, is to the following effect : “12. For villagers whose land has been acquired on or before 1.4.1997 for development of Noida. (i) Khata No. _________ Khasra No. ________ Village _______ Area of Land ___________ Name of Co-tenure holder (if any) __________ (ii) Date of Acquisition/Possession __________ Date of receipt of compensation _________ (iii) Details of already allotted flat(s)/house(s)/residential Plot(s) in Noida of any of the Tenure holder/Co-tenure holder(s)/their spouse dependent children Sl. No. Name of Allottee(s) Date of Allotment Plot/Flat No. & Sector 1 2 3 4" 13. The pleadings of the Authority in the counter-affidavit and the supplementary counter-affidavit is to the effect that Authority has been pursuing the policy for allotment of plot to only one heir of the deceased tenure holder and it was specifically provided that even if a tenure holder has more than one Khata only one allotment shall be made. Paragraph 31 of the counter-affidavit stated as follows : “31. That the contents of Para 14 are not a correct representation of the facts nor law and hence are denied and answered as following. The petitioners contention there was no bar applicable to left over legal heirs or co tenure holder under the scheme to apply to future schemes is not a correct interpretation and thereby not admitted. The respondent authorities twin objectives policy has been to (a)compensate to all original tenure holders (whether single or multiple) and one legal heir of the tenure holder or co tenure holder in cases where the original tenure holder expired and (b) compensate those original tenure holders prior to those whose land had been acquired by the authority earlier. It is submitted that the petitioner is attempting to extend the policy restricted to original tenure holders (i.e. allotment of land against one Khata entry to multiple tenure holders and multiple legal heirs). It is submitted that the petitioner is attempting to extend the policy restricted to original tenure holders (i.e. allotment of land against one Khata entry to multiple tenure holders and multiple legal heirs). The interpretation suggested is not only against the policy declared and established principles of interpretation of statutes but also positively inequitable and against those tenure holders whose land was acquired later in time thereby making the chances of ever receiving the benefit of the scheme announced from time to time to almost nil a matter of record and hence do not call for a reply by the respondent.” 14. The question for consideration is as to whether the allotment of residential plot is permissible to more than one heir of deceased tenure holder and the restriction is only confined to a particular scheme or allotment made in any earlier scheme is also a disqualification to apply in any subsequent scheme. The relevant clauses of 2004(1) Scheme, which have already been quoted above, clearly provided that in case where original tenure holder whose land had been acquired, has expired only one heir of such person shall be eligible to apply and seek allotment of a residential plot in this scheme. The sub-clauses (v) and (ix) of Clause (D) of 2004(1) Scheme, as quoted above, clearly contemplated that only one of the legal heirs of deceased tenure holder is entitled for allotment. There cannot be any dispute that if a tenure holder whose land has been acquired, has already been allotted a plot then his heirs shall have no entitlement to apply under the villager category. The question is that if a tenure holder has more than one heir, whether they can apply in each successive scheme with rider that only one of the heirs will be allotted plot under one scheme. The purpose and object for allotting a residential plot is to benefit the tenure holder whose land has been acquired. Land of large number of tenure holders have been acquired under various land acquisition proceedings. There is a clear provision that if there are more than one co-tenure holder against one Khata or plot only one of the co-tenure holder shall be eligible for allotment. The purpose is to benefit more and more tenure holders whose land has been acquired. Land of large number of tenure holders have been acquired under various land acquisition proceedings. There is a clear provision that if there are more than one co-tenure holder against one Khata or plot only one of the co-tenure holder shall be eligible for allotment. The purpose is to benefit more and more tenure holders whose land has been acquired. In case interpretation is made that each heir shall be entitled to apply in different schemes disregarding the factum of allotment to any of heirs earlier, there shall be reservation for a category i.e. category of heirs of the deceased tenure holder who shall be permanent body claiming benefit in all subsequent schemes. Further the fact that one tenure holder has more than one heir, the factum that a tenure holder has one heir or several heirs shall have effect on the schemes floated by the Authority. Taking example that a tenure holder has ten heirs, his each heir shall have chance in ten future schemes even if in each scheme only one is entitled for allotment affecting the chances of other tenure holders whose land has been acquired, in future scheme. The interpretation which is put by the NOIDA and the policy which is being pursued from 2004 onwards is in consonance with the equity and cannot be said to be arbitrary or unreasonable. 15. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that restriction for allotment of plot to only one heir is confined to a particular scheme also cannot be accepted. Various terms and conditions of the scheme do not clearly support such contention. It is true that the conditions could have been more clearly and explicitly provided by the Authority so as to dispel any doubt about the eligibility but the interpretation which is being put on the condition by the Authority has to be accepted, moreso when under Clause 25(ii) of the terms and conditions of the scheme provides that interpretation as made by the Chief Executive Officer of the Authority shall be final. 16. Learned counsel for the petitioners has made much emphasis on the list which was initially published by the respondent No. 2 indicating the name of eligible applicants including the name of the petitioners. In the draw held on 6th November, 2006 on the basis of initial eligibility list, the name of both the petitioners were included. 16. Learned counsel for the petitioners has made much emphasis on the list which was initially published by the respondent No. 2 indicating the name of eligible applicants including the name of the petitioners. In the draw held on 6th November, 2006 on the basis of initial eligibility list, the name of both the petitioners were included. It is relevant to note that on 6th November, 2006 when the first draw was held no such ineligibility was attached to the petitioners since their brothers were allotted plots in the 2004(1) Scheme subsequently in the year 2008 when final draw of scheme 2004(1) was made. Thus the inclusion of names of the petitioners in the first draw held on 6th November, 2006 was perfectly justified since the draw for 2004(1) Scheme could be held subsequent to first draw of 2006(1) Scheme in which large number of applicants or their co-tenure holders were allotted plots. The Authority re-examined the eligibility list and published the new eligibility list by publication dated 5th July, 2009 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) in which the details due to which various applicants, who were earlier eligible, had become ineligible have been mentioned. The petitioners’ names find place in the publication with detail of their ineligibility. Thus the fact that petitioners’ name was selected in the first draw held on 6th November, 2006 does not help the petitioners and merely on the said basis the petitioners were not entitled to be included in the second draw. 17. The next submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that Authority has allotted plots to more than one heirs and their stand taken in the counter-affidavit that only one heir is eligible is not in accordance with their own action. In paragraph 3 of the reply to the supplementary counter-affidavit filed by petitioners details of various heirs of tenure holders whose land was acquired, have been given who were allotted more than one plot in different schemes. In the above context, the stand of the Authority has been mentioned in paragraphs 4 and 9 of the supplementary counter-affidavit dated 25th May, 2010, which is as under : “4. In the above context, the stand of the Authority has been mentioned in paragraphs 4 and 9 of the supplementary counter-affidavit dated 25th May, 2010, which is as under : “4. That in response to the aforesaid contention made on behalf of the petitioner it is respectfully submitted that no land owner whose land has been acquired, has any vested legal right to allotment of a residential plot de hors the terms of the scheme. The allotment is made under the terms of a Scheme, which the Authority may float from time to time. The eligibility may also vary from scheme to scheme. It is further submitted that the Government policy can change from time to time. An applicant can claim only that right which is available to him under the terms of a particular scheme. Reference to any previous scheme is therefore irrelevant and not meaningful. The policy had changed from the year 2004. Reference to any policy prior to the year 2004 or reference to allotments made prior to the year 2001 or 2003 i.e. prior to the year 2004 is therefore misplaced. 9. That as regard the contention of the writ petitioners that even under the 2006 scheme, more than one legal heir have been allotted a plot each, it is submitted that as per policy only one legal heir is entitled to allotment. Under the 2006 scheme till date no allotment letters have been issued. However, if any specific case of any ineligible applicant (like the writ petitioners) being considered for allotment is brought to the notice of the respondent Authority then the matter would be inquired into and necessary action in accordance with the law would be taken. It is further submitted that even if any allotment letter is issued to an ineligible person then the allotment, which is contrary to the policy, is liable to be cancelled and will be cancelled in accordance with law. The writ petitioners have no right to perpetuate any illegality or irregularity. The law is well settled that there cannot be any equality in illegality.” 18. The writ petitioners have no right to perpetuate any illegality or irregularity. The law is well settled that there cannot be any equality in illegality.” 18. In view of the above stand of the Authority, it is clear that Authority has been pursuing the policy of allotment of plot to only one heir of a deceased tenure holder since the year 2004 and in case any allotment has been made to more than one heir, it is for the Authority to inquire and take action and the fact that in any particular case allotment has been made to more than one heir of a deceased tenure holder cannot furnish any foundation for the petitioners to claim similar allotment when the policy of respondents is clear that not more than one heir of a deceased tenure holder can be allotted plot since the year 2004. 19. The Apex Court in the case of Chandigarh Administration v. Jagjit Singh, 1995 SCC (1) 745, has laid down that mere fact that the respondent Authority has passed a particular order in the case of another person can never be a ground to issue a writ in favour of the petitioners on the plea of discrimination if the order in favour of another person is found to be contrary to law or not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. Following was laid down by the Apex Court in paragraph 8 of the said judgment : “8. We are of the opinion that the basis or the principle, if it can be called one, on which the writ petition has been allowed by the High Court is unsustainable in law and indefensible in principle. Since we have come across many such instances, we think it necessary to deal with such pleas at a little length. Generally speaking, the mere fact that the respondent authority has passed a particular order in the case of another person similarly situated can never be the ground for issuing a writ in favour of the petitioner on the plea of discrimination. The order in favour of the other person might be legal and valid or it might not be. Generally speaking, the mere fact that the respondent authority has passed a particular order in the case of another person similarly situated can never be the ground for issuing a writ in favour of the petitioner on the plea of discrimination. The order in favour of the other person might be legal and valid or it might not be. That has to be investigated first before it can be directed to be followed in the case of the petitioner If the order in favour of the other person is found to be contrary to law or not warranted in the facts and circumstances of his case, it is obvious that such illegal or unwarranted order cannot be made the basis of issuing a writ compelling the respondent authority to repeat the illegality or to pass another unwarranted order. The extraordinary and discretionary power of the High Court cannot be exercised for such a purpose. Merely because the respondent authority has passed one illegal/unwarranted order, it does not entitle the High Court to compel the authority to repeat that illegality over again and again. The illegal/unwarranted action must be corrected, if it can be done according to law indeed, wherever it is possible, the Court should direct the appropriate authority to correct such wrong orders in accordance with law but even if it cannot be corrected, it is difficult to see how it can be made a basis for its repetition. By refusing to direct the respondent authority to repeat the illegality, the Court is not condoning the earlier illegal act/order nor can such illegal order constitute the basis for a legitimate complaint of discrimination. Giving effect to such pleas would be prejudicial to the interests of law and will do incalculable mischief to public interest. It will be a negation of law and the rule of law. Of course, if in case the order in favour of the other person is found to be a lawful and justified one it can be followed and a similar relief can be given to the petitioner if it is found that the petitioners’ case is similar to the other persons’ case. But then why examine another person’s case in his absence rather than examining the case of the petitioner who is present before the Court and seeking the relief. But then why examine another person’s case in his absence rather than examining the case of the petitioner who is present before the Court and seeking the relief. Is it not more appropriate and convenient to examine the entitlement of the petitioner before the Court to the relief asked for in the facts and circumstances of his case than to enquire into the correctness of the order made or action taken in another person’s case, which other person is not before the case nor is his case. In our considered opinion, such a course barring exceptional situations would neither be advisable nor desirable. In other words, the High Court cannot ignore the law and the well-accepted norms governing the writ jurisdiction and say that because in one case a particular order has been passed or a particular action has been taken, the same must be repeated irrespective of the fact whether such an order or action is contrary to law or otherwise. Each case must be decided on its own merits, factual and legal, in accordance with relevant legal principles. The orders and actions of the authorities cannot be equated to the judgments of the Supreme Court and High Courts nor can they be elevated to the level of the precedents, as understood in the judicial world. (What is the position in the case of orders passed by authorities in exercise of their quasi-judicial power, we express no opinion. That can be dealt with when a proper case arises.)” 20. In view of the foregoing discussions, the petitioners are not entitled for any relief. All the writ petitions are dismissed. ——————