JUDGMENT : SANJEEV KUMAR, J. 1. This intra court appeal by the Jammu Development Authority [in short “JDA”] is directed against a judgment dated 09.07.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court [“the writ court”] in OWP No. 359/2006, whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent-Beli Ram [hereinafter called “writ petitioner” for convenience] has been allowed and a direction has been issued to the JDA to allot a residential plot of land in favour of the writ petitioner, strictly as per Govt. Order No. 171-UD/1984 dated 21.04.1984 on the analogy of similar allotments made, in particular in favour of his two brothers, namely, Luder Mani and Durga Dass. 2. Before we advert to the grounds of challenge to the impugned judgment urged by Mr. Adarsh Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the JDA, we deem it appropriate to give brief resume of the factual antecedents leading to the filing of this appeal. 3. In the year 1975, the Govt. of Jammu and Kashmir decided to acquire a big chunk of land measuring 748 kanal and 11 marlas at Rakh Bahu, Rail Head Area Jammu, which included the land comprised in khasra no. 40 purportedly claimed to be in possession firstly of their father and thereafter with the writ petitioner and his two brothers. 4. Land acquisition process was initiated which ultimately culminated into passing of an award and payment of compensation to the interested persons whose lands had come under said acquisition. 5. However, it was decided by the then State Govt. that 38 families who were allottees/occupants of the land so acquired were required to be rehabilitated in addition to the payment of compensation. Accordingly, vide Government Order No. 171-UD/1984 dated 21.04.1984, sanction was accorded to the JDA for the utilization of 37 kanals of land supplemented by 15% of the area for construction of the roads situate between the Gandhi Nagar Extension and Rail Head Commercial Complex, Jammu for rehabilitation of identified 38 families evicted from the Rail Head Commercial Complex Area. This Govt. Order also prescribed the scales of allotment of the land proportionate to the land from where such families were to be displaced. 6. It seems that the JDA prepared a list of these 38 families and, accordingly, allotted them the earmarked land proportionate to the land which had been acquired from their holding/possession. 7. This Govt. Order also prescribed the scales of allotment of the land proportionate to the land from where such families were to be displaced. 6. It seems that the JDA prepared a list of these 38 families and, accordingly, allotted them the earmarked land proportionate to the land which had been acquired from their holding/possession. 7. Two brothers of the writ petitioner namely Luder Mani and Durga Dass, who were held and found to be in actual physical possession of the land acquired from khasra no. 40 were allotted a plot of land measuring one kanal out of the 37 kanals of land so reserved in the area and now known as “Commercial Complex Rail Head Area, Jammu” in terms of an allotment Order bearing no. JDA/KWS/394-95 dated 31.01.1989. 8. The writ petitioner, as it seems, was not and did not emerge in the picture at the relevant point of time when the allotment of one kanal plot of land was made in favour of his two brothers. The writ petitioner, later on, approached the JDA for allotment of one kanal plot of land in his favour at the Rail Head Commercial Complex, Jammu on the ground that he too was a allottee/occupant of the subject land in khasra no. 40 along with his two brothers and, therefore, could not have been ignored in the matter of allotment of land provided by the Government for rehabilitation of the displaced families. 9. Having failed to persuade JDA to allot him a separate plot of land, the writ petitioner filed OWP No. 54/1997 in which he prayed for a writ of mandamus to the JDA to allot him one kanal plot of land at Rail Head Commercial Complex, Jammu. The entire claim of the writ petitioner was based on his purported share in the land in khasra no. 40 which had been acquired and taken possession of from his two brothers above named. The writ petition filed by the writ petitioner was allowed and he was held entitled to his share in the land, by the writ court. 10. The writ court, while allowing OWP No. 54/1997 vide its judgment dated 11.10.1999, issued a direction to the JDA to allot a plot of land to the petitioner to the extent of one kanal, which, as per the writ court, was the remaining collective entitlement of the writ petitioner along with his brothers. 10. The writ court, while allowing OWP No. 54/1997 vide its judgment dated 11.10.1999, issued a direction to the JDA to allot a plot of land to the petitioner to the extent of one kanal, which, as per the writ court, was the remaining collective entitlement of the writ petitioner along with his brothers. The writ court in its judgment kept it open for the two brothers of the writ petitioner to make up their deficiency by demanding a share in the allotment of one kanal plot of land, which in terms of the writ court judgment, was to be allotted in favour of the writ petitioner by the JDA. 11. When the writ court judgment dated 11.10.1999 was not complied with by the JDA a contempt petition COA(OW) no. 03/2004 was filed by the writ petitioner. 12. During the course of contempt proceedings, the JDA came up with allotment of one kanal plot of land in Sector 9 of its Roop Nagar Housing Colony, Jammu and placed on record an allotment letter dated 02.07.2004. The contempt court accepted the compliance and, accordingly, disposed of the contempt petition vide its order dated 16.12.2004. 13. This allotment should have well satisfied the writ petitioner, however, the dissatisfied writ petitioner approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India by way of Special Leave Petition (SLP) Civil No. 5536 of 2005 against disposal of his contempt petition. The order passed by the contempt court was not interfered with by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India but the writ petitioner was left free to agitate his grievance in respect of the allotment of the plot in his favour at Roop Nagar Housing Colony, Jammu instead of the locality desired and claimed by the writ petitioner. It was also made clear by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in its order dated 12.05.2006 that the observations made by the contempt court while disposing of the contempt petition would not stand in the way of the writ petitioner to claim his rights in such proceedings, if any, instituted by him. SLP was disposed of vide an order dated 12.05.2005. 14. This is how the writ petitioner came to file writ petition OWP No. 359/2006. This writ petition was contested by the JDA. SLP was disposed of vide an order dated 12.05.2005. 14. This is how the writ petitioner came to file writ petition OWP No. 359/2006. This writ petition was contested by the JDA. The writ court after considering the rival contentions and the record came to a conclusion that the writ petitioner had been discriminated vis-a-vis his two brothers and, therefore, would be entitled to the allotment of plot of land only at Rail Head Commercial Complex, Jammu on the analogy of his two brothers. This was adjudged by the writ court vide its judgment dated 09.07.2015 which is now impugned in this Letters Patent Appeal before us. 15. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, we are of a considered opinion that the judgment passed by the writ court is not sound and sustainable for more than one reason. We make it clear at the outset that, admittedly, in terms of Govt. Order dated 21.04.1984 (supra) a provision was made for rehabilitation of 38 families upon an area of 37 kanals of land situate between Gandhi Nagar Extension and the Rail Head Commercial Complex, Jammu. This Govt. Order was by way of concession from the Government’s end to rehabilitate the families who were to lose their home and hearth because of acquisition of the land spread over good number of khasras. It is not and cannot be the case of anybody that these 38 families were not paid the compensation under the Land Acquisition Law so as to render the rehabilitation a matter of vested right and entitlement. The writ petitioner and his two brothers are the persons who are the recipients of the due land compensation. 16. The rehabilitation package promulgated vide Govt. Order dated 21.04.1994 was a benevolent gesture of and from the State Government towards its citizens getting displaced from their homes built upon the lands acquired. We cannot read into the Govt. Order any enforceable right made available to any of the 38 families that they will necessarily be allotted the land at a specified/specific place i.e. between Gandhi Nagar Extension and Rail Head Commercial Complex, Jammu. Thus, essence of policy underlying said Govt. Order was rehabilitation and not the allocation of any particular area of such rehabilitation. Order any enforceable right made available to any of the 38 families that they will necessarily be allotted the land at a specified/specific place i.e. between Gandhi Nagar Extension and Rail Head Commercial Complex, Jammu. Thus, essence of policy underlying said Govt. Order was rehabilitation and not the allocation of any particular area of such rehabilitation. True that most of the families displaced by acquisition including the families of the two brothers of the writ petitioner were accommodated in the aforesaid locality between Gandhi Nagar Extension and Rail Head Commercial Complex, Jammu but it is equally true that the writ petitioner was not and did not bring himself in picture at the relevant point of time. His name was not found reflected in the list of Assamies prepared by the JDA, as such, he could not be accommodated in the said location at the relevant point of time by the JDA. The writ petitioner approached the JDA somewhere in the year 1997, without citing any reason for his missing out in joining his two brothers, with his claim for allotment of a separate plot of land by way of rehabilitation on the ground that he too was the co-occupant of the land under khasra no. 40 along with his brothers which along with other lands was acquired by the Government for development. 17. The writ petitioner had filed writ petition OWP No. 54/1997 before the writ court claiming relief of allotment of one kanal of land in the Rail Head Commercial Complex, Jammu but the relief, as we find from the operative part of the judgment dated 11.10.1999, was granted with modification that while a direction was issued to the JDA to allot one kanal plot of land to the writ petitioner but without specifying the particular location as prayed for by the writ petitioner and this was obvious as by the year 1999 when the writ petition came to be disposed of, the entire specified land at Rail Head Commercial Complex, Jammu stood allotted and appropriated. It is in this context that the judgment passed by the learned Single Bench was implemented by the JDA and a plot of land measuring one kanal in Sector 9 of the Roop Nagar Housing Colony, Jammu was allotted in favour of the writ petitioner. 18. It is in this context that the judgment passed by the learned Single Bench was implemented by the JDA and a plot of land measuring one kanal in Sector 9 of the Roop Nagar Housing Colony, Jammu was allotted in favour of the writ petitioner. 18. It may not be out of place to mention here that Roop Nagar Housing Colony, Jammu is not a God forsaken place or an uninhabited area rather is one of the planned colonies developed by JDA. That being so, there should have been no grievance with writ petitioner with regard to the allotment of residential plot of land in the fully developed Roop Nagar Housing Colony, Jammu, more so, when there was no promise ever held out to the writ petitioner or others that they would be rehabilitated at a particular location. 19. Govt. Order under reference only identified land to be utilized for rehabilitation of the displaced families. Those who approached JDA in time were accommodated in the identified area rest like the writ petitioners were provided land in other residential colonies developed by JDA. 20. Rehabilitation was the intent whereas location/site was the consequence. That apart when the direction of the writ court contained in the judgment dated 11.10.1990 is itself specific and directs the JDA to allot one kanal plot of land without specifying any place, it cannot be contended as a matter of right on behalf of the writ petitioner that he should have been allotted the plot of land only in the Rail Head Commercial Complex, Jammu and nowhere else. 21. We do not find any good reason, as insisted by the writ petitioner, to invoke article 14 of the Constitution of India in the given facts and circumstances of the case. Two brothers of the writ petitioner who were in actual physical possession of the acquired land were rehabilitated along with others immediately after the land at the Rail Head Commercial Complex, Jammu was earmarked by the Government for rehabilitation purposes. It is the writ petitioner who faulted in coming in time to ask of a plot in the specified locality and, thus, his late approached the JDA cannot earn him a premium of allotment of a “plot” in the same vicinity as that of his two brothers. 22. It is the writ petitioner who faulted in coming in time to ask of a plot in the specified locality and, thus, his late approached the JDA cannot earn him a premium of allotment of a “plot” in the same vicinity as that of his two brothers. 22. As already stated, the writ petitioner was nowhere in the picture when displaced persons were accommodated in Rail Head Commercial area. He approached JDA in the year 1997 and was, thus, rightly accommodated on a vacant plot available with the JDA in one of the best residential colonies in the Jammu City. There was no element of discrimination involved in the matter of compliance with the judgment passed by the writ court. 23. True it is that when the contempt petition filed by the writ petitioner was dismissed on the ground that the judgment passed by the writ-court had been implemented by the JDA, the writ petitioner approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India to upset the contempt disposing order, but the fact remains that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India did not interfere with the order passed by the contempt court though it was left open to the writ petitioner to agitate his grievance again in respect of his allotment. 24. The liberty granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court cannot be construed to mean that the writ petitioner was held entitled to set up an entirely new case and could go to the extent of seeking recall or modification of the concluded judgment in implementation whereof the allotment order in favour of the writ petitioner was issued by the JDA. 25. For the foregoing reasons, we find merit in this appeal. The same is, accordingly, allowed. The judgment passed by the writ court is set aside. The appellant-Jammu Development Authority is directed to immediately and forthwith handover the possession of the allotted plot of the land to the writ petitioner in Sector 9, Roop Nagar Housing Colony, Jammu subject to the completion of the requisite formalities. Disposed of accordingly.