JUDGMENT Reena Devi w/o Kamlesh, Santari w/o Jasvanta, Hansmati w/o Narkul and Shabana Begum w/o Afasar Ali are before this Court assailing the validity of the order wherein the allotment in question, that has been so made in their favour under Lohia Awas Yojna scheme has been cancelled. 2. From the side of the petitioners this much fact has been contended that entire activity in question that has been initiated on the spot is on account of political pressure being inflicted by local MLA and submission has been made that as far as Reena Devi w/o Kamlesh and Shabana Begum w/o Afasar Ali are concerned, it may be true that in the name of their father-in-law house in question has been allotted under the said scheme and qua them action, that has been so taken, is a justifiable action but as far as Santari w/o Jasvanta and Hansmati w/o Narkul are concerned, there is voluminous documents to show and substantiate that they have been residing in their huts at the outside of the village in question and such documents have not at all been taken note of and ignoring the same it has been mentioned that no substantive document has come. Petitioners are also submitting that various incumbents on the spot have been unduly favoured whereas their candidature was also liable to be cancelled and such candidates are Seema w/o Shiv Shankar, Poonam w/o Ram Singh, Sila Devi w/o Shashikant, Moni w/o Ram Kumar and Sahina w/o Iqbal. 3. We have proceeded to examine the records in question and from the records this much is clearly reflected that as far as petitioner nos. 1 and 4 i.e. Reena Devi w/o Kamlesh and Shabana Begum w/o Afasar Ali are concerned, qua them no relief can be accorded by this Court, inasmuch as, accepted position is that in the name of their father-in-law house in question has been allotted and they have been staying therein. Once such is the factual situation qua them no relief or reprieve can be accorded to petitioner nos. 1 and 4 by this Court but as far as petitioner nos. 2 and 3 i.e. Santari w/o Jasvanta and Hansmati w/o Narkul are concerned, their matter certainly require re-visit in view of the documentary evidences, that have been so produced before us and same are public documents, as such, we proceed to give liberty to the petitioner nos. 1 and 4 by this Court but as far as petitioner nos. 2 and 3 i.e. Santari w/o Jasvanta and Hansmati w/o Narkul are concerned, their matter certainly require re-visit in view of the documentary evidences, that have been so produced before us and same are public documents, as such, we proceed to give liberty to the petitioner nos. 2 and 3 i.e. Santari w/o Jasvanta and Hansmati w/o Narkul to produce all such documents before the Project Director, District Rural Development Agency, Kanpur Dehat and on such documents being produced, the said authority would re-examine the matter in reference of petitioner nos. 2 and 3 and the decision, that has been subjected to be challenged before this Court, will abide by the fresh orders to be passed by the Project Director, District Rural Development Agency, Kanpur Dehat. 4. Coupled with this, we also proceed to ask the Project Director, District Rural Development Agency, Kanpur Dehat to re-examine the claim of Seema w/o Shiv Shankar, Poonam w/o Ram Singh, Sila Devi w/o Shashikant, Moni w/o Ram Kumar and Sahina w/o Iqbal also and in case there are other incumbents, who have already been benefited in any other scheme and do not fall within the parameters of the scheme in question. The said matter be again re-visited and entire exercise be undertaken, in accordance with law, within outer limit of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. With these observations/directions, writ petition is disposed of.