JUDGMENT : 1. Writ petition No.10714 of 2015 had been filed by the petitioner No. 1 through its Director O.P. Gupta, petitioner No. 2 initially praying for a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the impugned order/letter dated 19.11.2014 issued by the Desk Officer (Institutions) on behalf of opposite party No. 1 and praying for issuance of writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to allot a plot admeasuring 10,000 Sq. Meters situated at Sectors - 162/164/165, NOIDA covered by the Open-Ended Scheme for Development of Farm House on Agricultural Land 2010-11 (hereinafter to referred as OES 2010) with relation to the petitioner's application dated 08.10.2010 bearing registration No. 27, at the rate prevalent at the time of submission of the form or at such rate which this Court may deem fit and proper. 2. The reliefs claimed by the petitioners are on the ground that it had applied for allotment of a plot having size of 10,000 sq. meters in the OES 2010 within time and submitted all documents necessary and non- refundable processing fee and earnest money of 10 per cent of the estimated cost of the plot applied for. The petitioner No. 2 appeared before the Plot Allotment Committee (hereinafter to referred as the "PAC") on 08.03.2011 and the members interviewed him and all the queries were answered to the full satisfaction of the Committee and it was orally assured to the petitioner No. 2 that he would soon be informed about further Formalities to be carried out with respect to the deposit of balance amount and execution of a sale deed etc. 3. When nothing was heard for about a month from the respondent no. 1, the petitioner no. 1 through one of its executives sent an RTI application. The said RTI application was regarding total number of the applications received, the total number of plots available, the complete details with names, addresses and plot size applied for by all applicants along with the date of receipt of such applications and the date of allotment , if any, made to the applicants etc. In between April to December, 2011 the petitioner No. 1 through its other executives and the petitioner No. 2 filed as many as three RTI applications and sent three letters to the respondent no. 1 seeking information about the criteria for allotment and other matters. 4. In between April to December, 2011 the petitioner No. 1 through its other executives and the petitioner No. 2 filed as many as three RTI applications and sent three letters to the respondent no. 1 seeking information about the criteria for allotment and other matters. 4. Only on 15.02.2012 the Public Information Officer of the respondent No. 1 gave an information to the effect that 115 applications were received and rest of the questions put under the RTI Act still remained unanswered. The petitioners thereafter preferred an Appeal under the RTI Act. 5. Thereafter, the OSD (Y), issued a letter on 03.07.2012 containing two charts. The first chart contained description and details of 115 applicants along with respective form number, dates of registration, names of the applicants, registration money deposited by them and the respective sizes of the plots applied for. The second Chart contained details and description of 54 allottees with reference to their applications. The name of petitioners did not find mention in the second chart containing details of allottees. 6. On 04.06.2014 the petitioner received a letter from PAC to appear before it on 09.06.2014 and for the first time through this letter the petitioner came to know that PAC had made certain recommendations in its meeting held on 08.03.2011 with respect to some people and with respect to the petitioner had granted time to submit additional information. This additional information (Vanchhit Prapatra) was not specified but the petitioner no. 2 appeared before the Committee and personally handed over all documents requested for by the office, details of which have been given in the writ petition. The financial status of the petitioner was certified by the Bank which revealed that the petitioner had Fixed Deposit of Rs.11.06 crores as on 06.06.2014 and detailed chart was also furnished regarding the investment in equity shares having worth more than Rs. 25 crores which could be easily liquidated within two days. The net-worth of the petitioner no. 1 as on 31.03.2011 was shown as Rs.38.43 crores. 7. On 19.06.2014 the petitioners received a letter that as per the decision taken by the Board instead of earlier rate fixed of Rs.3,500/- per sq. meters the same has been revised to Rs.5,525/- per sq. meters plus location charges etc. for plot applied for in OES 2010. 1 as on 31.03.2011 was shown as Rs.38.43 crores. 7. On 19.06.2014 the petitioners received a letter that as per the decision taken by the Board instead of earlier rate fixed of Rs.3,500/- per sq. meters the same has been revised to Rs.5,525/- per sq. meters plus location charges etc. for plot applied for in OES 2010. In the letter dated 19.06.2014 it was also stated that in case requisite documents as desired by the PAC earlier are not received within fifteen days, then, the registration amount deposited along with the application form shall be returned to the petitioners. 8. The petitioners submitted additional documents on 04.07.2014 including consent for payment of revised rates for allotment of the plot applied for and again disclosed the net-worth to show that they had surplus capital for investment to see the proposed project to its completion. The petitioner no. 2 appeared before the PAC on 10.07.2014 and again before the Selection Committee to resubmit statements showing the net-worth as on 31.03.2010 and on 31.03.2014. Documents required were resubmitted for the third time in July, 2014 and when no information was received the petitioner no. 2 sent a letter dated 29.10.2014 detailing all the previous proceedings and making a request for allotment. 9. All of a sudden, on 19.11.2014 the petitioners received a letter indicating that some order had been passed for return of registration amount relating to the application dated 11.10.2010 through cheque dated 12.11.2014 of Rs.35 lacs. Again, petitioner on 28.11.2014 sent a letter seeking reasons for return of registration amount/earnest money and on 16.12.2014 and 19.01.2015 submitted application/representation seeking information with regard to the criteria/basis for allotment and reasons recorded by the Selection Committee/PAC for rejection of petitioner's application and refund of their earnest money. When no information was received the petitioners filed this writ petition claiming the reliefs as aforesaid. 10. It is the case of the petitioners that despite repeated correspondences and repeated submissions of all documents as desired by the PAC at various points of time, the "Vanchhit Prapatra" or required document were never disclosed in writing and only on personal meeting in the office certain additional information were asked for which additional information/documents were made available to the respondent no. 1 within time. 11. 1 within time. 11. In the writ petition the petitioners have stated that on complaints being received by the State Government an inquiry was ordered through Lokayukta and the Lokayukta during the conduct of inquiry had issued a public notice on 5th/8th of July, 2013. The petitioners thereafter collected data regarding paid up capital of the allottees with respect to their status, name etc. and current financial worth and compiled a chart which has been filed as Annexure No. 21 to the writ petition. 12. Out of a list of 54 allottees, twelve allottees at the time of filing of the writ petition had a paid-up capital of Rs.1 lac only and out of these twelve allottees ten have been allotted plots of a size of 10,000 sq. meters and two of a size of 20,000 sq. meters. 13. In paragraphs - 96, 97 and 98 of the writ petition a mention has been made that as per the application form registration/earnest money was Rs.35 lacs and an additional 20 per cent of total premium of the plot's value was to be deposited within thirty days from the date of issuance of the allotment letter. For a plot of a size of 10,000 sq. meters the amount of 20 per cent would come to Rs.70 lacs whereas such twelve allottees as mentioned in paragraph - 96 did not have enough funds to even complete the project. The details of these twelve allottees have been given in paragraph - 99 of the writ petition. 14. There were plots also available, in all designated Sectors i.e. three plots in Sector - 162, seven in Sector - 164 and at least 10 in Sector - 165 which still remained unallotted. In paragraphs 102 to 105 of the writ petition a mention has been made regarding a writ petition filed by Twenty Four Oranges Lab LL.P whose applications for allotment of industrial plots in Sector - 63, NOIDA were rejected. It approached this Court by means of Writ - C No. 52933 of 2010 which was allowed on 11.10.2013 and the judgment of this Court was affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. A copy of the judgment and order dated 11.10.2013 has been filed as Annexure - 40 to the writ petition. It approached this Court by means of Writ - C No. 52933 of 2010 which was allowed on 11.10.2013 and the judgment of this Court was affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. A copy of the judgment and order dated 11.10.2013 has been filed as Annexure - 40 to the writ petition. It is the case of the petitioners that almost in a similar situation petitioner's registration amount has been refunded without pointing out even a single fault in the petitioner's case. 15. This Court while entertaining the writ petition on 24.02.2015 directed the respondent no. 1 to place all original records regarding the allotment of plots of Farm-houses. All the documents/records were produced before the Court on 09.03.2015 and this Court after examining the records came to the conclusion that the allotments have been made in a wholly unfair manner to certain persons in the OES-2010 although they were applicants of old Scheme 2008, on the ground that some writ petitions were filed by them which were pending. It was, therefore, directed that till the next date of listing, status quo with regard to the plots allotted in favour of such persons shall be maintained, and the nature of land shall not be altered nor it shall be transferred to any third person by the allottees and the NOIDA itself shall not make any further allotment of plots, if any, available under the scheme till the next date. 16. On Court's direction such allottees as mentioned in the order dated 09.03.2015 were arrayed as respondent nos. 6 to 10 in the writ petition. The respondents no. 6, 7, 8 and 9 being Om Prakash Wadhwa, Krishna Kumar Wadhwa, Vijay Kumar Wadhwa, Suresh Kumar Wadhwa Sons of Chetan Das, New Delhi and respondent no. 10 being M/s. Krona Builders (P) Ltd., Lucknow. 17. An amendment application was moved by the petitioners thereafter, seeking to amend the writ petition and add prayers No. (ii-A) for issue of an appropriate writ or direction or order cancelling/nullifying the allotments made in favour of respondents No. 6 to 10 and further to direct the respondents no. 1 to 5 to allot the petitioners anyone of the said five plots becoming available after such cancellation or any other plot under OES 2010 or for direction to the authorities to carve out a plot under the said Scheme and allot the same to the petitioners. 1 to 5 to allot the petitioners anyone of the said five plots becoming available after such cancellation or any other plot under OES 2010 or for direction to the authorities to carve out a plot under the said Scheme and allot the same to the petitioners. Certain pleadings and grounds were also added to the writ petition by way of amendment allowed. 18. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 to 5 on 28.04.2015 by the Desk Officer (Institutions) in the earlier paragraphs No. 3, 5, 8, 11 to 30 it was mentioned that one Open Ended Scheme (V) 2008 for development of Farm Houses on agricultural land was launched in 2008-2009. Subsequently, this Scheme was further continued for the period 2010-2011 and PAC in its meeting dated 08.03.2011 with the petitioner's representative had clearly indicated that the petitioners were unable to provide satisfactory details regarding the financial viability of the proposed project to the satisfaction of the PAC and on request, the petitioner No. 2 was granted one more opportunity to produce additional documents. 19. It is the case of the NOIDA that the number of plots available for allotment and all the necessary information were displayed on the Notice Board and also uploaded on the website and it is also their case that on request of the petitioners repeated opportunities were granted but they failed to satisfy the PAC. In paragraph - 29 it has been stated that PAC had allotted plots in the Scheme of 2008 and thereafter in the subsequent Scheme of OES 2010 in a fair and transparent manner. 20. After paragraph No. 29 the case of NOIDA all throughout in its counter affidavit is that there were two schemes namely OES 2008 and OES 2010. Some complaints were received by the government on which Lokayukta conducted an inquiry and submitted a report on 11.11.2013 and only thereafter, the process of allotment which was stayed during the pendency of such inquiry, was restarted in February, 2014. A meeting was held with all applicants by the PAC thereafter in June, 2014 including with the petitioner and CEO, NOIDA on 07.08.2014 directed to finally decide all pending (deferred) applications for allotment in OES - 2008 and OES- 2010 and PAC thereafter considered even deferred cases of OES - 2008 along with the applicants of OES - 2010. 21. A meeting was held with all applicants by the PAC thereafter in June, 2014 including with the petitioner and CEO, NOIDA on 07.08.2014 directed to finally decide all pending (deferred) applications for allotment in OES - 2008 and OES- 2010 and PAC thereafter considered even deferred cases of OES - 2008 along with the applicants of OES - 2010. 21. Paragraphs - 95 to 99 of the writ petition were admitted as a matter of record. Paragraph 100 giving the details of available plots in the scheme which were not allotted was specifically denied by NOIDA and it said that only five plots were available for allotment to the PAC after initial allotments being completed on 31.01.2011 to 54 allottees, and the private respondents No. 6 to 10 were made allotments because of writ petitions filed by them later on. 22. Writ petitions No. 9737 of 2012 and 9739 of 2012 were filed by the respondents no. 6 and 7 individually and on 01.03.2012 an interim order was granted that till further orders no allotments should be made in the earlier OES 2008. Throughout the pendency of these writ petitions no further allotments of plots in favour of anyone could be made by the NOIDA authority. Ultimately these writ petitions were disposed of on 07.01.2014 directing the NOIDA to indicate all papers and documents required by it and directing the petitioners therein to submit the same within three weeks thereafter and the claim of the petitioners would thereafter be decided by the competent authority within six weeks thereafter. The Court in its judgment and order dated 07.01.2014 had noted that the Lokayukta had submitted its report on 11.11.2013 and there was no reason for NOIDa not to proceed with the allotments after the submission of the inquiry reports in case no illegality was found in the process of allotment by Lokayukta. 23. The NOIDA in its counter affidavit has mentioned that the case of the petitioners was considered in OES 2010 by the PAC but the applicant was "unable to provide satisfactory details regarding the sufficiency of financial viability of the proposed project, lack of desired commitment to execute the proposed scheme, inability to financially support the proposed project with proper details and complete particulars in relation thereto ............." 24. A mention has also been made of the meetings held on 08.03.2011, 22.03.2011 and 28.03.2011 and it has been said that a true copy of the proceedings of these three meetings is being collectively filed as Annexure - 3 to the counter affidavit. It has also been submitted in paragraph - 92 that the respondents no. 8 and 9 had filed two separate writ petitions No. 14590 of 2012 and 14592 of 2012 respectively which were finally decided on 31.10.2012 directing that the case of the aforesaid respondents be considered within the time frame fixed by the Court under the old Scheme of 2008. 25. The respondents No. 8 and 9 thereafter filed writ petition No. 7093 of 2013 and 7098 of 2013 respectively which were finally decided on 07.02.2013 directing the NOIDA to consider and dispose of the allotment applications of the said petitioners by taking a decision to allot left over vacant plots to them under the old Schemes or under the new Scheme. Such applications were directed to be considered on their own merits. Later on, a modification application was moved and this Court on 03.05.2013 directed the NOIDA authority to consider the case of allotment of plots to the respondents No. 8 and 9 under the old Scheme i.e. OES 2008. 26. It has further been said that the respondents no. 6 to 9 were brothers and their cases were considered together and they being old applicants, the petitioners cannot allege discrimination made by NOIDA as petitioners were not applicants in the old Scheme but filed application under new (subsequent scheme) of OES 2010. 27. M/s. Krona Builders, Pvt. Limited (respondent No. 10), were applicants in OES 2010 and they filed writ petition No. 7929 (MB) of 2012 for consideration and during the pendency of the writ petition the respondent No. 10 requested that it would withdraw its writ petition in case an allotment is made in its favour and after allotment it also withdrew its writ petition on 24.09.2014. 28. In paragraph - 99 of the counter affidavit it has been mentioned that after the directions of the Government and of the Court under orders dated 16.06.2014 of the CEO, NOIDA, the PAC considered the pending (deferred) applications for only 27 plots which were available for allotment. 28. In paragraph - 99 of the counter affidavit it has been mentioned that after the directions of the Government and of the Court under orders dated 16.06.2014 of the CEO, NOIDA, the PAC considered the pending (deferred) applications for only 27 plots which were available for allotment. In paragraph - 100 it has been mentioned that vide letter dated 09.06.2014 all the applicants were duly informed who also appeared in subsequent meetings of the PAC held on 19.06.2014, 02.07.2014 and 11.07.2014. There were only 29 applicants left as deferred out of which two took back their registration fees. Thus, out of 27 applicants the PAC made allotment in favour of five (respondents No. 6 to 10) applicants and refunded registration fee to twenty two other applicants including the petitioners. 29. In paragraph 104 of the counter affidavit it has been mentioned that under the OES 2008 on the recommendations made by the PAC out of 109 applicants, 98 were allotted plots and 10 applications were deferred. Nine applicants were given time and one application was rejected. Registration money of 82 applicants were returned from January, 2008 to April, 2010. Likewise in OES 2010 out of 115 applicants, 49 allotment letters were issued up to 03.05.2011 and five allotments were made subsequently to respondents No. 6 to 10 on direction of the Court in September, 2014. Thus, fifty four allotments were made in OES 2010. 30. In the counter affidavit of NOIDA a mention has been made of a similar writ petition No. 21663 of 2011 : Vikas Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. and others relating to allotments of plots for farm houses in OES 2008 having been dismissed by a judgment of this Court on 16.04.2011. 31. A rejoinder affidavit was filed on 16.07.2015 by the petitioners to the counter affidavit filed by the NOIDA in which besides reiterating the contents of the writ petition it was specifically stated that after the meeting held on 08.03.2011 by the PAC, no further proceedings were held in the petitioner's case and after more than three years the petitioners were asked to appear before the PAC on 09.06.2014. The petitioners had absolutely no notice of any proceedings held on 08.03.2011, 22.03.2011 and 28.03.2011. 32. The petitioners had absolutely no notice of any proceedings held on 08.03.2011, 22.03.2011 and 28.03.2011. 32. The conduct of the NOIDA officials was unfair and biased as from the material on record it is demonstrated that the applicants registered at serial No. 96 (PPL Firm Pvt. Ltd.) and 97 Integrity Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.) had applied respectively on 24.03.2011 and 25.03.2011; 26.03.2011 was a Saturday and 27.03.2011 was a Sunday. These two applicants were allotted plots on 30.03.2011. There were only two intervening working days between the submission of applications and allotments made. It is not clear as to how and in what manner and when NOIDA authority conducted its allegedly thorough process for considering the applications and thereafter conducted scrutiny and then called these applicants for interview and thereafter had taken a final decision to allot the plots. The applicant at serial No. 96 (PPL Firm Pvt. Ltd.) had a paid up capital of only Rs.1 lac; whereas the initial amount required to be deposited at the time of moving the application was Rs. 35 lacs. 33. In paragraph 22 of the rejoinder affidavit the contents of paragraph - 42 of the counter affidavit were specifically denied that only five plots were allegedly vacant after Lokayukta submitted its report. It was stated that as a matter of fact, the number of plots under the Scheme of 2010 could not and cannot be confined to any particular number as the writ petition contains the information demonstrating various plots of different sizes which form the subject matter of allotment. The plots ranging from 10,000 sq. meters to more than 4,00,000 sq. meters were available for allotment. From the list of 54 allottees and subsequent five allottees the petitioners have collected data to reveal that total numbers of plots allotted in OES 2010 were 59. No. of Plots allotted Area per plot in Sq. Mtrs. Total Area in Sq. Mtrs. 9 20000 1,80,000 2 10060 20120 1 10080 10080 1 10094 10094 46 10000 4,60,000 Total 59 6,80,294 Sq. Mtr. 34. As such, it has been submitted that total area of plots allotted to all applicants is 6,80,294 Sq. Mtrs. The brochure itself published by NOIDA showed that the land was in abundance and without any specific limit or number. 35. Mtr. 34. As such, it has been submitted that total area of plots allotted to all applicants is 6,80,294 Sq. Mtrs. The brochure itself published by NOIDA showed that the land was in abundance and without any specific limit or number. 35. It is the case of the petitioners that after submission of the inquiry by Lokayukta the petitioner No. 2 appeared twice in June and July, 2014 before the Selection Committee but its case was not considered properly and allotments were made to undeserving applicants for extraneous reasons. There was a mass level bungling and undue favoritism and wholesale perversity in the allotment process. 36. It has been specifically stated that the private respondents no. 6 to 9 were applicants in OES 2008 and they had, thus, applied for modification of the Court's order to the effect that their claim would be considered only under the old scheme 2008. However, the respondent Nos. 8 and 9 have been allotted plots under the new Scheme. With regard to the respondent No. 10 it has been stated that its net-worth at the time of submission of the application form was only Rs. 1 lac. The allotment was made to respondent No. 10 on 16.09.2014 even before withdrawal of writ petition No. 7929 of 2012 on 24.09.2014. Neither NOIDA nor the respondents No. 6 to 10 have dared to come forward to specifically disclose their net-worth and other financial parameters as the petitioners have stated their net-worth and documentary evidence in their writ petitions of their capability to meet all financial parameters with regard to the Scheme. 37. With regard to Annexure - CA - 3 i.e. a true copy of the proceedings allegedly held on 08.03.2011, 22.03.2011 and 28.03.2011 it is not clear as to how a single document could be filed regarding the proceedings which continued for three days and it is not clear as to whether all the seven officers participated in each day's proceeding or in all these proceedings that is to say whether all seven officers described at page 1 of the Annexure - CA 3 were present in one or two or all such meetings. It is the specific case of the petitioners that after the proceedings held on 08.03.2011 no proceeding was held for more than three years and the next meeting was held by the PAC only on 09.06.2014. 38. It is the specific case of the petitioners that after the proceedings held on 08.03.2011 no proceeding was held for more than three years and the next meeting was held by the PAC only on 09.06.2014. 38. The petitioners have also stated in their rejoinder affidavit that despite application being made for true copies of the complete copy of Annexure CA -3 i.e. 150 pages only page no. 1 and page No. 151 have been filed by NOIDA before the Court. 39. In para 41 of the rejoinder affidavit it has been mentioned that the respondent No. 10 having a net-worth/paid up capital of Rs. 1 lac only and it had applied for a plot of 10,000 sq. meters where as the registration money was Rs.35 lacs and cost of plot being 5.53 crores and total cost of Farm-house coming to an big amount of Rs.9 crores as per the details disclosed in its application. Moreover, the respondent No. 10 had filed writ petition No. 10768 (MB) of 2011 seeking allotment of plot in any of the Sectors - 162, 164 and 165. The said writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the State Government to consider the claim of respondent No. 10. The State Government thereafter by an order dated 19.04.2012 dismissed the claim of the respondent No. 10. The respondent No. 10 thereafter filed another writ petition No. 7929 (MB) of 2012 and during the pendency of the said writ petition without any favourable orders being passed therein, either interim or otherwise, NOIDA authorities suo motu took a decision on 07.08.2014 that in case the respondent No. 10 withdrew its writ petition No. 7929 (MB) of 2012 a plot would be allotted to it. The allotment was done thereafter on 16.09.2014 and the writ petition itself was dismissed as withdrawn only on 24.09.2014. With regard to the details mentioned in paragraph - 99 of the writ petition all twelve applicants were allotted plots even though they had paid up capital of Rs. 1 lac only, the correct registration numbers of these allottees were described in paragraph - 43 of the rejoinder affidavit. 40. With regard to the details mentioned in paragraph - 99 of the writ petition all twelve applicants were allotted plots even though they had paid up capital of Rs. 1 lac only, the correct registration numbers of these allottees were described in paragraph - 43 of the rejoinder affidavit. 40. With regard to the writ petition filed by Vikas Singh and others as mentioned in the counter affidavit of NOIDA the petitioners have stated that Vikas Singh and others may have filed a writ petition but their writ petition was to be considered on its own merit and dismissal of these writ petitions could not be said to constitute a bar against the consideration of the claim set up by the petitioners. With regard to the maintainability of the writ petition reiteration has been made of interim order granted by this Court on 09.05.2013 and thereafter impleadment of the respondent No. 6 to 10 by the petitioners. 41. On 30.10.2015 NOIDA has again filed a counter affidavit to the application dated 11.05.2015 made by the petitioners and with regard to the petitioners, again, it has been reiterated that they failed to give satisfactory reply to the queries made by the PAC and that the petitioner was not able to give all documents as required in the subsequent meetings. In paragraph - 10 of this counter affidavit it has been mentioned that the matter of allotment in favour of other applicants is neither in question nor it was necessary to file the entire proceedings of 08.03.2011, 22.03.2011 and 28.03.2011. However, true copies of the composite resolution passed in meetings held on 08.03.2011, 22.03.2011 and 28.03.2011 are filed as annexure No.CA-1. 42. It has been specifically stated that the respondents No. 6 to 9 were the applicants of Scheme of 2008 and in terms of the orders passed by this Court they were treated and allotted plots on the merits of their own case in the old Scheme of 2008 itself. With regard to the respondent No. 10 it was not disputed that two writ petitions were filed by it and that it was an applicant in OES of 2010. Its application was pending in the deferred category and after several meetings and furnishing additional particulars/information allotment was recommended on 07.08.2014 which was approved by CEO, NOIDA and an allotment order was issued thereafter. 43. Its application was pending in the deferred category and after several meetings and furnishing additional particulars/information allotment was recommended on 07.08.2014 which was approved by CEO, NOIDA and an allotment order was issued thereafter. 43. The respondents 6 to 9, the Wadhwa Brothers namely Om Prakash Wadhwa, Krishna Kumar Wadhwa, Vijay Kumar Wadhwa, Suresh Kumar Wadhwa, all sons of Chetan Das Wadhwa have filed a stay vacation application alongwith counter affidavit on 30th of March, 2015 and another counter affidavit on 14th of May, 2015 and a further affidavit on 15.2.2017. In the affidavits filed by respondent No.6 to 9, they have said that they had made application in terms of brochure for OES 2008, but their application was not being processed in accordance with law by the respondent Nos.1 to 5, even after personally appearing before the Plot Allotment Committee PAC on 8.3.2011 and answering all questions satisfactorily. Details of 3 sets of writ petitions filed by Wadhwa Brothers have been given including reference to Interim Orders dated 1.3.2012 and final orders on 31.10.2012, 7.2.2013, 3.5.2013 and 7.1.2014 and it has been said that even thereafter NOIDA harassed them and under threat of contempt. Respondent No.6, Shri O.P. Wadhwa and respondent No.7, Shri K.K. Wadhwa were allotted Plot Nos.FH-3, FH-4 in Sector-149(A) whereas respondent No.8, Shri V.K. Wadhwa and respondent No.9, Shri S.K. Wadhwa were allotted FH-12, FH-13 in Sector-164. 44. It is the case of the private respondent Nos.6 to 9 that they have deposited all the amounts as required by the allotment letters in December 2014 much before filing of writ petition by the petitioners. It is also their case that they have been constantly and bonafidely pursuing their allotment applications since the date of filing the same i.e. since 12.4.2010 under OES 2008. 45. The respondent Nos.6 to 9 have also objected to their being impleaded in the writ petition and also to the effect that in the entire writ petition before it was amended, there was no pleadings with regard to respondent Nos.6 to 9. They were not necessary parties or even proper parties to be impleaded in the writ petition and in case the petitioners were challenging all allotments made by NOIDA including their case, they should have impleaded all 157 successful allotees as contesting respondents to the writ petition and modified their relief clause accordingly seeking quashing of all allotments. 46. They were not necessary parties or even proper parties to be impleaded in the writ petition and in case the petitioners were challenging all allotments made by NOIDA including their case, they should have impleaded all 157 successful allotees as contesting respondents to the writ petition and modified their relief clause accordingly seeking quashing of all allotments. 46. It is also stated by these respondents that the initial scheme floated by NOIDA was OES 2008 and the last date for filing applications for allotment was fixed by advertisement itself as 12.4.2010. The respondent Nos.6 to 9 have filed their applications dated 12.4.2010 complete in all material respects and they were to be considered in the old scheme of 2008, whereas the petitioners had filed their application in OES 2010. In the minutes of the meeting held on 8.3.2011 and 28.3.2011, it was resolved by the Board that time be given to the respondent Nos.6 to 9 to file additional documents as was also given to the petitioner. The respondent Nos.6 to 9 completed all formalities and filed additional documents and their case was considered favorably after orders were passed by this Court, whereas the petitioners failed to file additional documents and therefore their case was rejected and their money refunded on 19.11.2014. 47. More or less, the same story has been repeated in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent Nos.6 to 9 individually to the writ petition on 14.5.2015. It has also been said that the old scheme of 2008 was from January, 2008 to 12.4.2010 after initial scrutiny only 190 applicants including respondent Nos.6 to 9 were considered for allotments of plots and out of these 190 applicants only 96 were actually allotted plots. The case of respondent Nos.6 to 9 was deferred and considered favorably only when orders were passed by this Court in various writ petitions filed by respondent Nos.6 to 9 individually. The new scheme of OES 2010 was from 15.9.2010 to 3.5.2011. There were 115 applicants including the petitioners 49 allotment orders were issued, 15 applicants were returned their registration money as desired by them while other applicants cases were deferred. 48. The respondent No.10, M/S Krona Builders have filed a separate counter affidavit on 14.5.2015. The new scheme of OES 2010 was from 15.9.2010 to 3.5.2011. There were 115 applicants including the petitioners 49 allotment orders were issued, 15 applicants were returned their registration money as desired by them while other applicants cases were deferred. 48. The respondent No.10, M/S Krona Builders have filed a separate counter affidavit on 14.5.2015. It is their case that they have made application for allotment under OES 2010 and when their application was not being considered, they preferred representations which were also not being considered, they filed a petition under Section-41 U.P. Industrial Development Act before the State Government, but this was also not being considered. Ultimately, they filed Writ Petition No.10768 MB of 2011 which was disposed of by this Court on 3.11.201 directing the State Government to look into the matter and pass a reasoned and speaking order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the respondent No.10. Liberty was given to respondent No.10 to represent his cause a fresh alongwith certified copy of the order dated 3.11.2011 and its matter was to be considered within three months by the State Government. A fresh representation was made under Section-41 on 5.12.2011, which was rejected by the State Government on 19.4.2012. 49. After rejection of its claim on 19.4.2012, respondent No.10 preferred a fresh representation to the State Government on 23.4.2012 and the State Government referred the matter to PAC which kept the matter pending, hence Writ Petition No.7929 MB of 2012 was filed challenging the order dated 19.04.2012 passed by the State Government and seeking a direction to NOIDA to reconsider the claim of the respondent No.10 in accordance with directions by the State Government. 50. It was after the Court took a serious view of the matter and made oral observation in open Court that despite the recommendation of PAC for grant of another opportunity to the applicant to place its case, it was not granted this opportunity whereas, the petitioners after filing application under OES 2010 on 31.03.2010 kept silent for a period about four years and only approached the Court after it was refunded the registration amount on 19.11.2014. 51. 51. In answer to the allegation of the petitioners' company that the respondent No.10 did not qualify the financial parameters it has been stated that the respondent No.10 has net worth of Rs.501 lacs and its Directors Arun Kumar Agrawal has a net worth of Rs.607.1 lacs, Gaurav Agrawal has a net worth of Rs.1896.77 lacs and Meenakshi Agrawal has a net worth of Rs.200.73 lacs. Thus, the company and its Directors have a net worth totaling to Rs.3258.69 lacs. 52. Two rejoinder affidavits have been filed by the petitioner to the counter affidavits filed by the respondent Nos.6 to 9 jointly. In these rejoinder affidavits, the petitioners reiterated their claim that the respondent Nos.6 to 9 were applicants in the old scheme of 2008 and this Court had permitted consideration of their claims either under the old scheme or the new scheme but the respondent Nos.8 and 9 preferred modification applications which were allowed and ultimately it was decided by this Court that their claims would be considered only under the old scheme. However, the respondent Nos.8 and 9 have been allotted plots under the new scheme. The said private respondents never wanted nor did they request for allotment under the new scheme. Their case could not have been considered under the new scheme by NOIDA and thereafter, a plea could not be taken by it that there were no plots left for allotment to the petitioners. 53. On perusal of the records produced before the Court on 09.03.2015 this Court had come to a conclusion that allotments made by the respondent Nos.1 to 5 to the private respondent Nos.6 to 10 were due to deliberate and undue favoritism and collusion. The respondent No.6 to 9 had applied for allotment of farm house plots in their individual capacity and respondent No.10 had applied in its capacity as a company, but the financial status of all these respondents was much below that of the petitioners. The petitioners had a better claim as they could see the project to its completion. 54. In the rejoinder affidavit to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.10 the petitioners has stated that net worth of individual Directors cannot be considered as net worth of the company. Moreover, even till 31.03.2014 the authorised share capital of respondent No.10 company was only Rs.1 lac. 54. In the rejoinder affidavit to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.10 the petitioners has stated that net worth of individual Directors cannot be considered as net worth of the company. Moreover, even till 31.03.2014 the authorised share capital of respondent No.10 company was only Rs.1 lac. The allotment was made in favour of the respondent No.10 on 07.08.2014 and the allotment letter was issued on 16.09.2014 and till 05.12.2014 i.e. even after 16.09.2014, the paid up capital of the respondents' company was only Rs.1 lac. A comparison of paragraph 12 of the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No.10 with Pages 72 to 76, i.e. the annexure filed alongwith it would show that the figures mentioned therein depicting net worth and liquid assets were misleading and the respondent No.10 did not have the financial capacity to see the project to its completion. The allegation is reiterated that due to collusion and extraneous consideration respondent No.10 has been allotted the plot in question in preference to the valid claim made by the petitioners. 55. This case was heard by us on several occasions and Sri Ravi Kiran Jain, the learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Kshitij Shailendra, Advocate pointed out in detail and very meticulously, the requirements for a valid application as mentioned in brochure of OES 2010, and from the annexures to the writ petition, the application for allotment made by the petitioners. It is the case of the counsel for the petitioners that despite completing all formalities and submitting and re-submitting papers and documents and even personally contacting the authorities of the respondent No.1 and being interviewed by PAC, the petitioners were not informed exactly what was expected of them. Due to extraneous consideration the application was kept pending whereas, other applications were expedited and allotments made ignoring the claim of the petitioners. 56. The learned senior counsel has pointed out the various orders passed by this Court in various writ petitions of the respondent Nos.6 to 10 and has emphasized that this Court had never made any positive direction with regard to considering the case of the respondent Nos.6 to 10 favorably. 56. The learned senior counsel has pointed out the various orders passed by this Court in various writ petitions of the respondent Nos.6 to 10 and has emphasized that this Court had never made any positive direction with regard to considering the case of the respondent Nos.6 to 10 favorably. This Court had only issued directions that opportunity of hearing be given to the respondent Nos.6 to 10 while deciding their case and the respondent Nos.8 and 9 be considered as old applicants in the left over plots of OES 2008 only. Yet the respondent Nos.8 and 9 were allotted plots in OES 2010 and now NOIDA was pleading that no plots were left for petitioners after allotment being made illegally in favour of the respondent Nos.6 to 10. 57. From the minutes of the meetings allegedly held on 08.03.2011, 22.03.2011 and 28.03.2011, the learned senior counsel has pointed out that the observations therein are vague and inconclusive. Exactly what was wrong or incomplete in the application for allotment made by the petitioners was never disclosed. The criteria for allotment being mentioned in the brochure of OES 2010, was fulfilled to the letter by the petitioners' company. Yet repeatedly representatives were summoned and the petitioner No.2 himself was interviewed thrice on 08.03.2011, 19.06.2014 and 10.07.2014. Each time he was asked to re-submit documents regarding net worth of the company, firstly as on 31.03.2010 i.e. the last date of making of application under OES 2010 and thereafter, as on 31.03.2014. All details as required were furnished regarding financial status of the company and the capacity of the petitioners to see the project to its completion. 58. It was also emphasized by the learned senior counsel that despite mention being made in the Brochure of OES 2010 that the number of plots and their location in the various sectors will be displayed on the Notice Board and published on the website of NOIDA, no such disclosure was made at any point of time. The petitioners were kept in the dark all throughout with regard to number of plots available. It is the case of the petitioners that there were still a number of plots on which the petitioners could be accommodated. The petitioners were kept in the dark all throughout with regard to number of plots available. It is the case of the petitioners that there were still a number of plots on which the petitioners could be accommodated. Initially when the Brochure were issued for OES 2010 it required same form and documents to be given by all applicants irrespective of their status as individuals or as companies or trusts or societies. The respondent No.6 to 9 had made applications in their individual capacity and respondent No.10 had made application as a company. The net worth of each of the private respondents in term of financial status was much below that of the petitioners. It is not clear as to how the NOIDA had come to the conclusion that the respondent Nos.6 to 10 as well as other successful allottees in OES 2010 were better capable than the petitioners and hence, eligible for allotment of plots. 59. Sri Ravi Kant, senior counsel appearing for NOIDA assisted by Sri Shivam Yadav had submitted before this Court that in the OES 2008 and 2010 inviting applications from willing and capable individuals and companies in terms of conditions mentioned in the brochure of OES 2010 was only "an invitation to offer". The applications made by the petitioners and several others could only be said to be "offers". No statutory right of such applicants could be said to have been violated as their case was considered as the only statutory right these applicants had was that of being considered in accordance with the norms laid down in the Scheme itself. Such norms were never violated. Repeated opportunities were given to the petitioners to substantiate their claim of capacity to fulfill the Farm House Project and see it to its completion. The petitioners failed to avail the opportunity or to satisfy the requisite conditions and therefore, they were refunded their money on 19.11.2014. 60. It has been argued by Sri Ravi Kant, learned Senior Advocate that there were limited plots available with NOIDA under OES 2010. With regard to private respondents, it has been submitted that their case was reconsidered only because of writ petitions being filed by them and directions being issued by this Court to consider their case. 60. It has been argued by Sri Ravi Kant, learned Senior Advocate that there were limited plots available with NOIDA under OES 2010. With regard to private respondents, it has been submitted that their case was reconsidered only because of writ petitions being filed by them and directions being issued by this Court to consider their case. It has also been submitted by Sri Ravi Kant that the relief claimed in the writ petition was to quash "order" dated 19.11.2014 which is only a letter informing the petitioners that after due consideration their registration amount/earnest money was being refunded. The order rejecting their claim has not been challenged by the petitioners at all. 61. Sri Shivam Yadav, on a specific query being made by us, has informed this Court that 101 plots were initially set aside for allotment OES 2008 and 56 plots in OES 2010. It has also been informed that the relevant considerations for allotment not only related to financial status or net worth of individuals and companies which were applicants, but also the capacity to see the project to its completion. There were not only the financial parameters that were to be met by the applicants. The case of the petitioners was rejected because the petitioner No.2 was unable to provide specific details regarding sufficiency and financial viability of the proposed project and there was a perceived lack of desired commitment to execute the scheme. The petitioners and the respondent No.10 were considered in the category of companies and the respondent Nos.6 to 9 and some other applicants were considered in the individuals category. 62. Sri Nirvikar Gupta, appearing for their private respondents Nos.6 to 9 has placed before this Court an affidavit sworn in February, 2017 by K.K. Wadhwa respondent No.7. It has brought on record the last judgment passed by this Court on 19.12.2014 in writ petitions filed by the respondent No.6 to 9 individually. The petitioners O.P. Wadhwa, K.K. Wadhwa, Suresh Kumar Wadhwa and V.K. Wadhwa had challenged the enhanced rate of Rs.5,525/- per square meter being charged by NOIDA as cost of land. The Court had considered the arguments made by the respondent Nos.6 to 9 that they had been discriminated in allotment from the Year 2009 to 2011 as 148 persons had been allotted plots in OES 2008 at the old rate of Rs.3100/- per square meter. The Court had considered the arguments made by the respondent Nos.6 to 9 that they had been discriminated in allotment from the Year 2009 to 2011 as 148 persons had been allotted plots in OES 2008 at the old rate of Rs.3100/- per square meter. The delay on the part of the NOIDA was deliberate as a result of which, the respondent No.6 to 9 suffered. This writ petition was dismissed on 19.12.2014 and thereafter, the respondent Nos.6 to 9 had deposited the cost of land at the enhanced rates and had even been given No Dues Certificate in December, 2014. 63. In the affidavit placed before us it has been mentioned that there are several plots which are still vacant and which could be allotted by the NOIDA. A list of such plots along with true copy of the map of Sector 149 has been filed as Annexure-2 to this affidavit. On the basis of this affidavit, Sri Nirvikar Gupta has pointed out that farm house plots were available in OES 2008 and OES 2010 in Sectors 126, 127, 128, 131, 133, 149A, 162, 164, 165 and 167 in NOIDA. Some plots were still vacant, for example Plot Nos.FH-24 in Sector 165, and Plot Nos.FH-4, FH-5 and FH-6 in Sector 167, on which the petitioners could be considered and the allotments made in favour of the respondent Nos.6 and 9 may not be disturbed. 64. Sri Shivam Yadav, however, categorically refused such a claim made by the counsel for the respondent Nos.6 to 9 and it has been stated that no plots are available as of now with NOIDA for allotment to the petitioners. It has been pointed out that the plots mentioned in Sector 167 have a stay order operating on them but it has not been disclosed as to which Court has granted this order in which case. With regard to FH-24 in Sector 165 shown as vacant, Sri Shivam Yadav has expressed his inability to respond as no instruction have been made available by NOIDA with respect to these plots, despite affidavit being filed by the private respondents in February, 2017 itself and sufficient time being available to rebut this claim made by the respondent Nos.6 to 9. 65. 65. After all these arguments were advanced with claim and counter claim the matter was got adjourned by Sri Shivam Yadav, Advocate, to seek further instructions in the matter and the matter was adjourned for further hearing on 24.5.2017. On 24.5.2017 Sri Ravi Kant, Senior Advocate, informed us that exercise is on and in effect a plot which is vacant has been located at Sector 149-A, Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar and modalities for allotment requires approval and, accordingly, the matter be adjourned for 29.5.2017 to be taken up at 2 PM. 66. On the matter being taken up on 29.05.2017 Sri Kshitij Shailendra, Advocate, informed us that a plot in question has been offered but a temple is standing thereon. 67. To this, Sri Ravi Kant, Senior Advocate, contended that whatever are the issues inter-se petitioners and Noida authorities, the same would be settled and the plot in question would be handed over to the petitioners after all requisite formalities are fulfilled and in this background request has been made that present writ petition be disposed of by giving liberty to the NOIDA to take a final call on the request of petitioners preferably within next two months from today. 68. In view of such request coming forward, we dispose of present writ petition by directing the NOIDA to take a final call in the matter, in accordance with law, as submitted before this Court and with this direction the writ petition is disposed of. 69. While dealing with this matter that relates to OES 2008 and OES 2010 dealing with (Development of Farm Houses on Agricultural Land), we have our own reservations for the reason that land of poor farmers has been acquired under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act for public purpose and the said land in question on one hand has been taken away from the farmers depriving them of their livelihood by conferring upon them nominal compensation amount and on the other hand the NOIDA has evolved a novel device in the name of OES 2008 and OES 2010. Under the aforementioned Schemes NOIDA has proceeded to give liberty to build a dream Farm House on agricultural land and in the said Plan the sizes of plot has been mentioned as 10000 square meter and above with the rate of allotment described as Rs. 3500/- per square meter or Rs.5,525/- per sq. Under the aforementioned Schemes NOIDA has proceeded to give liberty to build a dream Farm House on agricultural land and in the said Plan the sizes of plot has been mentioned as 10000 square meter and above with the rate of allotment described as Rs. 3500/- per square meter or Rs.5,525/- per sq. meter with location charges as applicable for the Scheme. The allotment of the said land, as mentioned above, is to be made in favour of an individual Indian Citizen/Trust/Charitable Trust/Society/Charitable Society/duly registered partnership Firm or Company constituted and incorporated in India and registered with the competent authority, as such, the said Scheme in question is made for only the affluent class. As is reflected from the Scheme in question the incumbent should have positive net worth/surplus investable funds then only Screening Committee would screen the matter and conduct interview for examining the viability of the proposed project. The plot sizes are from 10000 square meter, 10001 to 20000 square meter, 20001 to 100000 square meter, 100001 to 200000 square meter, 200001 to 400000 square meter and above 400000 square meter would be considered for allotment. The writ petition points out that for a plot size of 10,000 sq. meters the minimum amount required to build a Farm-house would be nine and a half crores. 70. We tried to understand the logic of creating Farm Houses after taking land of poor farmers from Sri Shivam Yadav, Advocate, but he simply came forward with the response that it was a policy decision and could submit nothing beyond the same. 71. In pith and substance, on its face value, the aforementioned scheme is for the rich and affluent persons. This much is also reflected from the record in question that large scale complaints have been made before the Lokayukta but at no point of time anything concrete came out of them and it appears that everything has been swept under the carpet so that the capricious manner in which the land of poor farmers, that has been taken away and handed over to rich and affluent persons, is not at all exposed. The fact of the matter is that once the land in question was belonging to poor farmers and it was acquired for the public purpose, then in our considered opinion building of Farm Houses for a particular class, prima facie, cannot be treated to be a public purpose. The fact of the matter is that once the land in question was belonging to poor farmers and it was acquired for the public purpose, then in our considered opinion building of Farm Houses for a particular class, prima facie, cannot be treated to be a public purpose. 72. Under the U.P. Industrial Area Development Act, 1976 functions of the Authority is as follows; "6. Functions of the Authority- (1) The object of the Authority shall be to secure the planned development of the industrial development areas. (2) Without prejudice to the generality of the objects of the Authority, the Authority shall perform the following functions- (a) to acquire land in the industrial development area, by agreement or through proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the purpose of this Act; (b) to prepare a plan for the development of the industrial development area; (c) to demarcate and develop sites for industrial, commercial and residential purpose according to the plan; (d) to provide infra-structure for industrial, commercial and residential purposes; (e) to provide amenities; (f) to allocate and transfer either by way of sale or lease or otherwise plots of land for industrial, commercial or residential purposes; (g) to regulate the erection of buildings and setting up of industries; and (h) to lay down the purpose for which a particular site or plot of land shall be used, namely for industrial or commercial or residential purpose or any other specified purpose in such area." 73. A bare perusal of the functions of the Authority would go to show that principal function of the Authority is to demarcate and develop sites for industrial, commercial and residential purpose according to the plan and to provide infrastructure for industrial, commercial and residential purposes and nowhere from the scheme of things it is reflected that the land of the poor farmers is to be acquired and then handed over to rich and affluent people for developing Farm Houses. 74. 74. NOIDA is always in a cover up mode, inasmuch as, whenever any illegality is pointed out, their attempt and endeavour is to cover up and in the present case also initially a stand was being taken by them that there is no plot available but at the end of day they have come up with the offer that there is a plot that could be offered and this Court has clearly noted in detail at the point of time when it proceeded to pass an order after calling for the record on 9.3.2015 that allotments made by the respondent nos. 1 to 5 to the private respondent nos. 6 to 10 were due to deliberate and undue favouritism and collusion and the respondent nos. 6 to 9 had applied for allotment of farm house plots in their individual capacity and respondent no. 10 had applied in its capacity as a company and petitioners have been left out. Once such has been the position that Noida authority has been trying to sweep all such issues under the carpet, then in our considered opinion it is true that Writ-C No. 10714 of 2015 has been disposed of but we are of the view that we cannot ignore the issues that are coming forward before this Court that in the present case land of the poor farmers have been taken away and in a designed manner given to the rich and influential people in the name of developing of Farm Houses. 75. In our considered opinion, this could have never been intent of the 1976 Act that the Authority shall behave and proceed in such a fashion. 75. In our considered opinion, this could have never been intent of the 1976 Act that the Authority shall behave and proceed in such a fashion. In such a situation and in this background, we are of the considered opinion that present matter pertaining to allotment of land for developing of Farm House in Noida in particular requires a judicial scrutiny in public interest litigation as prima facie it is a colourable exercise of power and is an issue of considerable public importance and, in view of this, we proceed to direct the Registry of this Court to register the matter as Public Interest Litigation and place the papers of present writ petition before Hon'ble the Chief Justice for placing the matter before a Larger Bench so that following questions are answered; I. Whether land of farmers acquired for public purpose can be handed over to the rich and affluent persons for construction of Farm Houses? II. Whether, in the facts of the case, in designed manner, and in colourable exercise of power of acquisition, land in question has been acquired and then used for the purpose for which it was never ever acquired? III. Whether, in the facts of the case, under the scheme of allotment of Farm Houses, transparency, if any, has been maintained or allotments have been made in an unfair manner, extending undue benefit to particular individuals and their family members? IV. Whether, in the facts of the case, land in question can be resumed back and utilised for the purpose for which it was acquired, once it is substantiated that the allotment was in violation of public trust doctrine? 76. Let needful be done in the matter, accordingly.