JUDGMENT Rajiv Sharma and Rakesh Srivastava, JJ Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel and perused the record. 2. The petitioners were in possession of meat shops, which belonged to Nagar Palika Parishad, Pratapgarh. A policy decision had been taken by the Nagar Palika Parishad to construct new shops after demolishing the old shops. Feeling aggrieved by the said decision of the Nagar Palika Parishad, the petitioners filed a suit of permanent injunction (Suit No.786/95) before the Civil Judge (S.D.), Pratapgarh, alongwith application for temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 1 C.P.C. The said application was rejected by the Civil Judge vide order dated 24.4.1996, against which the petitioner filed appeal (bearing No.31 of 1996) before the District Judge, Pratapgarh, wherein stay order was granted in favour of the petitioners, staying the demolition of the shops. In disobedience of the said interim injunction order granted by the District Judge in the appeal, the shops in question were demolished by the opposite party nos.3 and 4 and new shops were constructed. 3. When the said disobedience of temporary injunction order on the part of opposite party nos.3 and 4 was brought to the notice of this court, vide order dated 28.10.2005 the court directed the Executive Officer of Nagar Palika Parishad (respondent no.4) to appear before this court and explain as to under what authority, the petitioners' shops had been demolished, when the demolition was stayed under the temporary injunction order passed by the competent court. In compliance of the said order, the executive officer of Nagar Palika Parishad appeared before this court on 10.11.2005 and tendered unconditional apology, and assured the court that the petitioners would be considered for allotment of their shops, whereupon this court did not intend to proceed further against the Nagar Palika Parishad. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners entered into an agreement with the Nagar Palika Parishad for allotment of newly constructed shops. According to the petitioners, they were told and understood to pay quarterly installments of Rs.1,55,000/-, but fraudulently, taking advantage of their illiteracy, in the agreement Rs.2,55,000/- was written. On coming to know about the said fraud, they moved an application for revaluation of the construction, upon which the valuation was got assessed by the technical agency under P.W.D., which valued the cost of the shop at Rs.1,37,000/-. On coming to know about the said fraud, they moved an application for revaluation of the construction, upon which the valuation was got assessed by the technical agency under P.W.D., which valued the cost of the shop at Rs.1,37,000/-. This valuation has also been verified by the revenue inspector. 5. Under the circumstances, we dispose of the writ petition with the direction to the District Magistrate Pratapgarh to refer the matter for re-determination of valuation of the shops in question at the time when the shops had been rented including arrears of value, to the competent authorities, i.e. Valuation Officer of the District as well as Valuation Officer of the Nagar Nigam and after receiving their reports, will determine the valuation of the said shops, applying his mind, to which the petitioners submit that they are ready to pay. In case the petitioners deposit the rent, determined by the District Magistrate, within a period of one month, they will not be dispossessed from the shops in questin. However if they fail, it will be open for the opposite parties to proceed in accordance with law.