ORDER : S.R. Waghmare, J. By this writ appeal u/S.2(1) of Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypith Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 the appellants are aggrieved by order dated 20.06.2013 passed in W.P. No.6399/2010 (Annexure A/1) by the Writ Court allowing the petition. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent/petitioners had preferred a writ petition challenging the cancellation of allotment of plots by respondent/appellant No.1 IDA in Scheme No.47 (Agrawal Nagar) by passing resolution No.25. It was contended that the predecessor in title of the petitioners were the owners of land admeasuring No.6.50 acres. The owners of the land were Bherulal, Mishrilal, Govind and Madan. Their land was acquired under the provisions of Town Improvement Trust Act, 1960 vide notification dated 15/2/1963 under Section 71 of the Town Improvement Trust Act. Two plots were allotted to two brothers namely Bherulal and Mishrilal in return. However, no plots were allotted to the petitioners; whereas Smt. Ghisibai petitioner No.1 was the wife of Govindlal while Madanlal was the petitioner No.2. Their representations were also considered from time to time and two plots were subsequently allotted by an order dated 9/06/1992 and possession was given of the said plots on 23/12/1992. However, the allotment was again the subject matter of challenge by Kailash Chandra and upon the complaint, the State Government appointed the Jagatpati Commission which submitted his report (Annexure P/10) and on the basis of its report, the criminal case was registered against the petitioners under the provisions of Special Economic Offence. Although the final report dated 29/12/2006 submitted in this regard was in favour of the petitioners on the basis of Jagatpati Commission, the allotment of plots to the petitioners was cancelled and hence the petitioners filed W.P. No.1791/1999. This Court vide order dated 04/07/2005 held that the petitioners are in occupation of the plots and were directed to move an appropriate representation before the respondent/I.D.A. The I.D.A. considered the matter keeping in view the fact that since 1992 the petitioners were in occupation and the brothers were granted the plots and enjoying their property. However, the representation filed by the petitioners was dismissed on 07.05.2010 and hence the writ petition No.6399/2010. 3. Counsel for the appellants also vehemently urged that the original petitioners Mishribai and Madanlal who filed the petition earlier, both have expired and it is the LRs now prosecuting the cause. However, the representation filed by the petitioners was dismissed on 07.05.2010 and hence the writ petition No.6399/2010. 3. Counsel for the appellants also vehemently urged that the original petitioners Mishribai and Madanlal who filed the petition earlier, both have expired and it is the LRs now prosecuting the cause. It was also submitted before the Court that the petitioners are still in occupation of the premises and the respondent I.D.A. were directed to re-allot the plots to the petitioners. 4. Contrary to the said submissions, the Counsel for the respondents; present appellant I.D.A., resisted the petition by stating that on the basis of Jagatpati Commission report, the fresh allotment had already taken place and hence representation (Annexure P/21) was rightly dismissed. Counsel for the appellant I.D.A. urged that the learned Judge of the Writ Court has however wrongly held that since the allotment to the two brothers took place in the year 1992 itself, no reasons were assigned in the representation and an illegal occupation can not be considered at all and the learned Writ Court has erred in directing completion of formalities for allotment of the said plots to two petitioner brothers: the present respondents. 5. Counsel for the respondent, Shri Bagadia, Senior Counsel has vehemently urged the fact that the matter had attained finality and after considering the facts of Jagatpati Commission report and the fact that the possession had been given to the respondent petitioners in the year 1992 itself (whereas the other two brothers were given the plots in 1980) the respondent IDA could not have discriminated the present petitioners. Moreover the Writ Court had properly appreciated the facts and held that the cancellation was bad in law since the allotment to the petitioners had taken place before the Jagatpati Commission was formed and even in the case under the provisions of Special Economic Offence, the final report dated 29/12/2006 it was held in favour of the petitioners and in this regard also the cancellation after the Jagatpati Commission report was contrary to the facts of the case. Besides the allotment was keeping with the resolution No.245 dated 17.10.1979 in which the land was held to be of the brothers joint ownership and two of them were already granted the land and are still in possession and enjoying the property. Besides the allotment was keeping with the resolution No.245 dated 17.10.1979 in which the land was held to be of the brothers joint ownership and two of them were already granted the land and are still in possession and enjoying the property. Besides it is an admitted fact that the possession of the petitioners has not been disturbed since 1992. Counsel submitted that there is no merit in the appeal and the same be dismissed. All the other objections raised by the appellants/IDA also are without substance and an after thought; whereas the order of the learned Single Judge was fully justified and did not call for any interference. Counsel prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 6. On considering the above submissions, the important fact that cannot be lost sight is that the allotment has been made to two brothers. Consequently the appellant I.D.A. has also realised that it could not discriminate between the legal representatives and has allotted the plots to the respondent petitioners. In this light also there is no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.6399/10. We do not find any good ground to interfere the order which is well reasoned and even the facts and circumstances of the case are fully justified, therefore, the order passed in Writ Petition No.6399/2010 on 20.06.2013 is hereby upheld and the appellant IDA is directed to comply with the said order within a period of two months from date of this order. 7. With the aforesaid, the appeal is dismissed to the extent herein above indicated. 8. No costs. CC as per rules.