JUDGMENT Mr. Rameshwar Singh Malik, J.: - This order proposes to decide 10 similar writ petitions, wherein the facts as well as question of law involved, are identical. However, for the facility of reference, facts are being culled out of CWP No.8212 of 1994. 2. Petitioner is aggrieved against the order dated 09.07.1993 (Annexure P-3), passed by the then Chief Settlement Commissioner, Haryana, whereby the additional demand raised for an amount of Rs.34,000/- by the respondent-Department, was upheld. 3. Notice of motion having been issued, joint written statement was filed on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners, at the very outset, fairly states that he has got the instructions to say that petitioner is ready to deposit, the demanded amount i.e. Rs.34,000/- along with interest @ 9% from the date of demand till the actual date of payment, so as to save her property. He further submits that the respondent-authorities would not be in a position to claim anything more than the amount, what has been offered by the petitioner. He further submits that given an opportunity to the petitioner, she shall deposit the amount of Rs.34,000/- along with interest @ 9% from the date of demand, till the actual date of payment. 5. Learned counsel for the State on instructions from Sh.Rajinder Singh, Assistant, Office of Secretary to Government of Haryana, Department of Rehabilitation, could not deny the above said factual aspect of the matter. However, he submits that since during the pendency of these petitions, the State Government has enacted Haryana Evacuee Properties (Management and Disposal) Act, 2008, as amended vide Act of 2010 and also framed the Haryana Evacuee Properties (Management and Disposal) Rules 2011, petitioners may be directed to deposit the amount, at the new market rates prevailing now. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length, after careful perusal of the record of the case and giving thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions raised, this Court is of the considered opinion that writ petitions deserve to be allowed. To say so, reasons are more than one, which are being recorded hereinafter. 7. It is undisputed fact on record that an additional amount demanded from the petitioner at the time of passing of the impugned order was Rs.34,000/-. To say so, reasons are more than one, which are being recorded hereinafter. 7. It is undisputed fact on record that an additional amount demanded from the petitioner at the time of passing of the impugned order was Rs.34,000/-. He does not appeal to reason as to how the respondent-authority can claim anything extra from the amount, which was demanded by themselves at the time of passing of impugned orders. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner has made a very fair offer, that to save the property, petitioner was ready to deposit the additional amount of Rs.34,000/- along with interest from the date of demand, till actual payment. 8. Further, learned counsel for the State could not put into service any other argument, so as to persuade this Court to take a different view in the given fact situation of present cases. The offer made by the petitioner is genuine, reasonable and fair which deserves to be accepted. Petitioner is not an illegal occupant. She was a bona fide allottee for due consideration. It is also undisputed that the amount for which the allotment was initially made in favour of the petitioner, had been paid at that very point of time. Petitioner never defaulted while making the payment. Only because writ petitions were pending before this Court for quite some long time, is none of the faults of the petitioner and she cannot be made to suffer. 9. Learned counsel for the State could not give any justified reason to ask the petitioner to pay at the current price. The allotment in question was made in pursuance of policy instructions formulated by the State Government. Petitioner was found to be an eligible person for the allotment of the land, which was lying vacant adjacent to her house. Further, the small piece of land which was allotted to the petitioner, was not going to be of any use to the State Government. Keeping this fact in view, the State Government rightly formulated that policy to dispose of those small pieces of land, which were lying vacant, in favour of those persons whose residential houses were adjacent. 10. Further, lateron it was found that some irregularities took place at the time of allotment. Keeping this fact in view, the State Government rightly formulated that policy to dispose of those small pieces of land, which were lying vacant, in favour of those persons whose residential houses were adjacent. 10. Further, lateron it was found that some irregularities took place at the time of allotment. It is also admitted fact between the parties that those irregularities were regularized later on by the higher authorities, while passing the appropriate orders in every case. In such a situation, the demand raised by the respondents seeking direction to the petitioners to pay the current price has been found to be totally unreasonable which is liable to be rejected. 11. No other argument was raised. 12. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this Court is of the considered view that present writ petitions deserve to be allowed. 13. Consequently, the impugned orders are set aside. Petitioners shall make their respective payments demanded vide their respective impugned orders in every case, along with simple interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of demand till the date of actual payment in favour of the respondent-Tehsildar(Sales)-cum-Managing Officer, Department of Rehabilitation, Faridabad, Haryana, within a period of 6 weeks from today. 14. Resultantly, in view of the observations made and directions issued hereinabove, instant writ petitions stand allowed, however, with no order as to costs.