JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and Respondents and also perused the materials on record. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts of the case are that the NOIDA Authority conducted draw of lots in residential plot scheme 2003 (1) on 29.12.2003 wherein respondent no 3 was declared as one of the allottees. A lease deed was executed on 11.5.2006 between the respondent no 2 and respondent no 3 with regard to plot no 17, Block B Sector 52, NOIDA District Gautambudh Nagar. Later-on, NOIDA Authority granted permission to transfer rights of leasehold in regard to plot concerned. The petitioner herein purchased plot on 11.8.2006 from respondent no 3 in lieu of due consideration. Later on, the respondent no 2 issued mutation certificate No NOIDA/Res Plots/10752 in favour of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner raised construction on the said plot and a completion certificate was also issued by the respondent no 2 vide letter No NOIDA/BC/BPR-17744/844. 3. A Public Interest Litigation which was numbered as PIL No 7693 of 2010 Nem Chand Awana V State of U.P. and others was filed before this Court, wherein a direction was sought for an independent inquiry in the allotment proceeding of plots/flats of the year 2003, 2004 and 2006 by the NOIDA Authority. The said Public Interest Litigation came to be disposed of by order dated 23.2.2010 passed by this Court with the following directions. "Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that irregularities, if any, in the allotment of plots/flats in NOIDA which at present becomes premium and valuable holding should not be permitted to go unnoticed. We are not inclined to issue any direction to the State Government to hold a general enquiry in respect of the allotment made long back. However, on specific instances being brought before the NOIDA Authority, we direct the respondent no.2 to take appropriate action in accordance with law. The petitioner will provide the details of the specific instances within two weeks from today and the NOIDA Authority, respondent no.2, will take appropriate action in accordance with law within six weeks thereafter. However, on specific instances being brought before the NOIDA Authority, we direct the respondent no.2 to take appropriate action in accordance with law. The petitioner will provide the details of the specific instances within two weeks from today and the NOIDA Authority, respondent no.2, will take appropriate action in accordance with law within six weeks thereafter. However, if the petitioner fails to give the said details within two weeks from today, the NOIDA Authority shall not be under any obligation to hold any enquiry or to take any action. The writ petition stands disposed of. " 4. The NOIDA Authority in pursuance of the order passed by this Court sent notices to various allottees and the petitioner also received a notice dated 31.1.2011 to show cause why allotment on plot concerned be not cancelled. In the notice, it was mentioned that the plot in question was allotted on the ground that the land of the father of respondent no 3 namely, Shri Meher Chand had been acquired and the respondent no 3 being his legal heir, was eligible for allotment of the plot. It was pointed out in the notice that another plot had already been allotted to one Sri Gopi Chand, son of Shri Mehar Chand on the ground that he was the legal heir of Sri Meher Chand and as per policy only one legal heir of the person whose land had been acquired, was entitled for allotment and therefore, the allotment to the respondent no. 3 was not permissible. In the present petition, the above mentioned notice has been impugned. 5. The Court by order dated 22.2.2011 passed the interim order directing that "In the meantime, status quo as of date, will be maintained by the parties." 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a bonafide purchaser and he has purchased the plot in question after paying due consideration and the land has also been mutated in his favour and a residential house has also been constructed on the plot. There is no concealment or fraud on behalf of the petitioner and by this reckoning, the notice impugned is liable to be quashed. 7. The NOIDA Authority has filed a counter affidavit wherein it has been averred that the respondent no 3 was allotted plot in question under village quota of the residential plot scheme 2003 (1). There is no concealment or fraud on behalf of the petitioner and by this reckoning, the notice impugned is liable to be quashed. 7. The NOIDA Authority has filed a counter affidavit wherein it has been averred that the respondent no 3 was allotted plot in question under village quota of the residential plot scheme 2003 (1). It is further averred that in pursuance of the order passed by this Court in PIL No 7693 of 2010, notices were issued to the allottees, where it has been found that more than one family member of the person whose land had been acquired were allotted plots and it is submitted that such allotment is contrary to the terms and conditions of the lease deed. 8. It is admitted case that the respondent no 3 was allotted the plot in question and he had paid the due consideration and he was granted possession of the plot. Later-on, with the permission of the Authority, the plot in question was sold to the petitioner in lieu of due consideration and mutation certificate was also issued in favour of the petitioner. There is no allegation that the petitioner herein has committed any fraud. The petitioner, after purchasing the plot, has also constructed a residential house which is being used for living and the petitioner is also living there in the said house. The petitioner is a bonafide purchaser for value paid in good faith without notice and when there is no allegation of fraud or misrepresentation, title of the petitioner must be protected. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the notice dated 31.1.2011 impugned herein is set aside.