Pradeep Nandrajog, J.:-- 1. The appellant is the mother of respondents No. 4 and 5. She is the mother-in-law of respondent No. 6. The first respondent is the Delhi Development Authority. The second respondent is the Airports Authority of India and the third respondent is the Additional District Magistrate, Government of NCT Delhi, North-West District. 2. Residents owning properties in the abadi and the extended abadi of village Nangal Dehwat had challenged by way of W.P.(C) No. 481/1982 the acquisition of the land in the village abadi and extended abadi. At the instance of the Airport Authority of India the village abadi and the extended abadi was proposed to be acquired by-the Central Government for the expansion of the Indira Gandhi International Airport. On August 02, 2001 the writ petition was disposed of taking on record the fact that the Airport, Authority of India would allot, through the Delhi Development Authority, a residential plot to the owners of the houses in the village abadi and the extended abadi. 3. Applications were filed in the writ petition pointing out that whereas the Land Acquisition Collector was threatening to take over possession of the acquired abadi and the extended abadi land, alternative plots were yet to be allotted. Grievance raised was that the villagers would be rendered without a shelter. 4. It transpired that the legal heirs of many recorded owners of the land in the village abadi and the extended abadi had notapplied for substitution in their names. On October 20, 2003 the Tehsildar was directed to decide all applications filed seeking substitution of the legal heirs of the deceased owners. Since the acquisition was at the instance of the Airport Authority of India and resolution of the pending issues required a look into the revenue record or the updation thereof, on April 28, 2004 Sh. S.S. Kanawat the Additional District Magistrate-cum-Revenue Assistant of village Nangal Dehwat was appointed as the Nodal Officer charged with the task of:- (a) Preparing a list of eligible persons to be allotted plots. (b) Decide objections to the alleged erroneous inclusions of names of persons in the eligibility list drawn up. (c) To take decisions in respect of issues arising in drawing up of list. (d) To decide issues of mutation in favour of legal heirs, and for which 15 days’ time was granted to the parties to file necessary applications. (b) Decide objections to the alleged erroneous inclusions of names of persons in the eligibility list drawn up. (c) To take decisions in respect of issues arising in drawing up of list. (d) To decide issues of mutation in favour of legal heirs, and for which 15 days’ time was granted to the parties to file necessary applications. (e) To decide whether eligible persons have been put in the relevant category of the size of the plot to be allotted. 5. The Nodal Officer prepared a list of the eligible persons. This led to 82 persons filing applications in the writ petition raising issues to the list drawn up. On February 24, 2005 the learned Single Judge of this Court tallied the list prepared by the Nodal Officer with the naksha munta zarain to narrow down the list of eligible persons whose entitlement was not in dispute. Finding the exercise requiring factual adjudication and reference to a lot of record, vide order dated May 18, 2005 it was directed that as per the guidelines framed in the order, 15 days’ further time would be further made available to persons who had a grievance of their names not being included in the list of eligible allottees or who had a grievance to the area of the plot proposed to be allotted to them. Noting that Sh. S.S. Kanawat had been transferred and in his place one Sh. A.K. Singh had taken over as the Additional District Magistrate-cum-Revenue Assistant it was directed that such applications which were filed within 15 days of May 18, 2005 as also the pending applications would be decided by Sh. A.K. Singh the Additional District Magistrate-cum-Revenue Assistant. The guidelines were drawn up by consent and were to facilitate the decision making process because all claims were to be decided as per the guidelines framed. 6. Simultaneously with the aforesaid exercise being conducted, at the asking of the Airport Authority of India the Central Government acquired 713 bigha and 2 biswa land in village Rangpuri and placed the same at the disposal of the Delhi Development Authority for being developed and residential plots carved out to be allotted to the eligible persons. 7. One Sukhdev was the owner of a residential plot in the abadi of village Nangal Dehwat. He was blessed with three sons named Surjan, Hukain and Sheonath. Whereas Hukam died issueless. 7. One Sukhdev was the owner of a residential plot in the abadi of village Nangal Dehwat. He was blessed with three sons named Surjan, Hukain and Sheonath. Whereas Hukam died issueless. Surjan was survived by his son Jaipal. Sheonath was survived by his sons Sharwan Kumar and Ashok Kumar. Needless to state that on the death of Hukam his share in his father’s property devolved on his two brothers Surjan and Sheonath. Thus, interest of Sukhdev in the house in the village abadi was inherited equally by Surjan and Sheonath. On Surjan’s death his son Jaipal acquired his 50% interest. On death of Sheonath in the year 1978, since his wife has pre-deceased him, his sons Sharwan Kumar and Ashok Kumar inherited his 50% interest, meaning thereby in the residential house owned by Sukhdev the two inherited 25% interest each. Sharwan Kumar died on January 24, 1987 survived by the appellant Darshana Devi his wife. His son Avinash and daughter Ritu. In other words in the residential house owned by Sukhdev Darshana Devi would have 1/3rd interest in the 25% share of Sharwan Kumar and this would be the interest of Avinash and Ritu. Thus, the appellant, her son and her daughter would have 8.33% interest in the property which devolved as aforenoted through Sukhdev. 8. There being a policy of the Delhi Development Authority to include the name of the wife of a male to whom land was to be allotted, with respect to Sheonath’s 50% share in the residential house a joint allotment was made in the names of Ashok Kumar, his wife Santosh Devi, and since Sharwan Kumar had died, in the names of Sharwan Kumar’s son Avinash and his wife Chinta. 9. The conveyance deed was executed on May 12, 2009 and within three days thereof Avinash and his wife Chinta sold their interest in favour a third person. 10. It was only on May 15, 2009 that the appellant Darshana Devi surfaced for the first time when she filed an application before the Sub-Registrar Kapashera requesting that no transfer document be registered pertaining to the plot allotted to Ashok Kumar, his wife Santosh Devi, Avinash and his wife Chinta. It was on said date i.e. May 15, 2009 that the plot of land was sold by Ashok Kumar, his wife Santosh Devi, Avinash and his wife Chinta. 11. It was on said date i.e. May 15, 2009 that the plot of land was sold by Ashok Kumar, his wife Santosh Devi, Avinash and his wife Chinta. 11. The Sub-Registrar was helpless because he was bound by the conveyance deed executed by Delhi Development Authority on May 12, 2009 and he could not act contrary thereto. 12. Thereafter the appellant filed a representation to the Delhi Development Authority. Since her representation was turned down by the Delhi Development Authority on the ground that the appellant had never filed any application praying to be impleaded as a legal heir of Sharwan Kumar, being his wife, the list of eligible persons was drawn up as per the information available and application filed for mutation by her son, the appellant filed a writ petition No. 6093/2011 challenging the order dated June 30, 2011 passed by the Delhi Development Authority informing the appellant as aforenoted in the preceding paragraph. 13. Vide impugned order dated August 24, 2011 the writ petition has been dismissed observing that appellant’s claim is a private claim for a share in a plot of land which has been allotted in lieu of the acquired land and thus the appropriate remedy would be a civil suit. 14. The contention of the appellant in appeal before us was that it being the undisputed position that the appellant was the wife of Sharwan Kumar, she would be entitled to a share equal to that of Avinash in the estate of Sharwan Kumar. Learned counsel urged that nobody was at variance on a matter of fact. Once the fact was admitted the legal consequences which flowed therefrom had to enure. Learned counsel urged that this would mean that the Airport Authority of India as well as Delhi Development Authority would be obliged to allot a parcel of land to the appellant in proportion to her share because she could not enforce her right in the plot allotted by Delhi Development Authority in the names of Ashok Kumar, his wife Santosh Devi, Avinash and his wife Chinta since they had sold the plot to a third party, who would obviously be a bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration. Learned counsel for the appellant urged that the Airport Authority of India was at fault by not carrying out a proper verification. 15. Learned counsel for the appellant urged that the Airport Authority of India was at fault by not carrying out a proper verification. 15. From the facts noted hereinabove, and especially the ones concerning the past litigation when the residents of the village abadi and the extended abadi litigated when their residential houses were being acquired, it would be apparent that two judicial orders were passed in W.P.(C) No. 481/1982, the first on April 28,2004 requiring persons who were interested in the allotment to file applications within 15 days, which would include those persons who had an issue concerning their names not being mutated in the record on the death of the recorded owner of the residential plot in the village abadi. The second is the order dated May 18, 2005 which once again made it obligatory on persons interested to file applications within 15 days. 16. The appellant has not whispered a word as to what was she doing till she arose from the slumber on May 15, 2009. Why did the appellant not file any application for her name to be mutated as the wife of Sharwan Kumar when he died on January 24, 1987? In the pleadings there is no answer, but at the bar we were informed by learned counsel for the appellant that the reason thereof was the strain relationship between Darshana and her husband. She was living separately in Gurgaon, 17. But how did Darshana suddenly learn of the allotment? No answer was forthcoming. 18. We have noted the aforesaid two questions which loomed large when arguments were advanced by the parties in the appeal because learned counsel for the Delhi Development Authority as well as the Airport Authority of India urged that it could not be a strange coincidence that after the conveyance deed was executed by Delhi Development Authority on May 12, 2009, within three days Darshana filed an application before the Sub-Registrar Kapashera requesting him not to register the sale deed proposed to be executed by Ashok Kumar, his wife Santosh Devi, Avinash and his wife Chinta which was presented for registration the same day i.e. May 15, 2009. Learned counsel had urged that it is apparent that Darshana and her son Avinash were in league. Darshana was aware of whatever was happening. Learned counsel had urged that it is apparent that Darshana and her son Avinash were in league. Darshana was aware of whatever was happening. She allowed the water to flow beyond the bridge and once the water had flown beneath the bridge she raised the claim hoping that the fiat accompli with respect to the plot allotted by Delhi Development Authority to Ashok Kumar, his wife Santosh Devi, Avinash and his wife Chinta would probably result in a allotment of another plot to her in proportion to her share in the estate of her deceased husband. 19. When a large track of land is acquired, persons staking an interest in the acquisition must lodge their claims within the stipulated time. If they do not do so, the Authority acquiring the land cannot be faulted. In the instant case the acquisition of the land was for a public purpose i.e. the expansion of the Indira Gandhi International Airport. Concededly on the death of Sharwan Kumar on January 24, 1987, Darshana Devi never filed an application praying that being Sharwan Kumar’s wife her name should be mutated in the revenue record with respect to Sharwan Kumar’s half share in the estate of his father Sheonath or to put it differently in Sharwan Kumar’s 25% share in the house which came to the family through the common ancestor Sukhdev. She never surfaced when after the award was made and possessions of the acquired lands were taken over. She made no claim within 15 days of April 28, 2004 as per the order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 481/1982. She never availed the opportunity to assert her right when the window was opened once again under order dated May 18, 2005 passed in W.P.(C) No. 481/1982. Within 15 days thereof, as required by the order, she could have filed an application before the Nodal Officer. 20. It could possibly be argued that her right to stake a claim is no longer available to her against either the Delhi Development Authority or the Airport Authority of India. The two authorities acted as per a list drawn up by the Nodal Officer. If at all, the right of Darshana Devi would be to sue her son and her daughter-in-law for a monetary compensation, and this has to be at a civil trial. 21. The two authorities acted as per a list drawn up by the Nodal Officer. If at all, the right of Darshana Devi would be to sue her son and her daughter-in-law for a monetary compensation, and this has to be at a civil trial. 21. A controversy was raised by learned counsel for the appellant concerning the record of the Nodal Officer by urging that the same evidences a collusion. The basis of the argument was the existence of an application dated April 03, 2002 bearing signatures of the appellant addressed to the Tehsildar indicating therein that mutation be effected in the name of her son Avinash. The application was claimed to be a fabricated document. 22. Since in our opinion the remedy of the appellant is to sue her son for monetary compensation, for the reason Delhi Development Authority and the Airport Authority of India processed the allotments as per recommendations received from the Nodal Officer, we refrain from expressing any opinion on said factual controversy for the reason if appellant were to file a suit against her son the disputed question of fact whether the application was or was not signed by the appellant would be decided. 23. We highlight once again that as regards the Delhi Development Authority, the Airport Authority of India and even the Nodal Officer we find that the appellant never filed any application till when on May 12, 2009 the Delhi Development Authority executed a conveyance deed in favour of Ashok Kumar, his wife Santosh Devi, Avinash and his wife Chinta. Since the appellant slept over her rights and the said three Authorities acted as per the orders dated April 28, 2004 and May 18, 2005 passed in W.P.(C) No. 481/1982, their actions have to be held as legal, valid and in accordance with law. 24. We dismiss the appeal observing that the facts noted by us hereinabove are the ones necessary to be taken note of to decide the issues arising in the appeal. If appellant takes recourse to a civil action against her son and her daughter-in-law claiming monetary compensation the suit shall be decided on merits keeping in view the evidence led and the learned Civil Judge shall not be influenced by any observations made by us for the reason we have spoken nothing on merits with respect to the claim of Darshana Devi against her son and her daughter-in-law. 25. Parties shall bear their own costs in the appeal.