JUDGMENT : 1. Petitioner through the medium of this petition pleaded that Plot No. 50 measuring 60’ x 90’ in Sector-1 of Roopnagar, Housing Colony, Jammu, being a corner plot was allotted to the original allottee at a premium of Rs.44,000/- as excess compared to other plots allotted in Sector-1, as the original allottee had paid an amount of Rs.4000/- in excess on the ground that a strip adjacent to the Plot shall be regularized in his favour in due course of time; that the petitioner purchased aforesaid plot in the year 2003, which was transferred in the name of the petitioner, vide Order No. JDA/RN/454-57 dated 15.06.2006 from the original allottee. 2. It has been alleged by the petitioner that the adjoining strip with plot of the petitioner has been numbered as 50-A and wrongly allotted to Respondent No.4 Vinita Chopra, vide Order No. JDA/RN/8635-40 dated 08.03.2006 by the Jammu Development Authority on the basis of ‘exchange of plot’ which is against the original plan of Sector No.4 of Roop Nagar, Jammu as the plot had already been numbered sector-wise without any prefixes and suffixes; that the petitioner was required to be allotted strip adjoining to his plot on the analogy of Plot No.61-A, which was earlier a strip but made a plot later; that despite repeated requests to regularize the strip adjoining his plot and the petitioner being willing and ready to pay the premium as per rules his plea was not considered and the strip adjoining the plot of the petitioner was given number 51-A as plot and allotted to Respondent No.4 in an arbitrary manner ignoring the rights and possession of the petitioner over the strip in question. 3. The petitioner through the medium of this petition has prayed for the following reliefs: i) To annul and quash Order No. JDA/RN/8635-40 dated 08.03.2006; ii) To command and direct respondents to allot/regularize strip adjoining Plot No. 50 of the petitioner in Sector-1, Roopnagar, Jammu, in favour of petitioner on the payment of usual premium; iii) To pass such other orders or directions which the Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the nature and circumstances of the case. 4. 4. Pursuant to notice, the respondents filed reply controverting the assertions of the petitioner pleading therein that Plot No. 10-P of Sector-6 of Roop Nagar Housing Colony Jammu measuring 60’x90’ was initially allotted to one Mohd Sayed Shah and a sum of Rs. 44,000/- was deposited by the allottee as premium inclusive of an additional sum of Rs.4,000/- being 10% of the total premium of Rs.40,000/- for the plot being a corner plot and subsequently, on the request of said Mohd Sayed Shah, this plot was exchanged with Plot No.50 of Sector-1 of the said colony and the dimensions of the said plot remaining the same and since the Plot No.50 was not a corner plot, the additional amount of Rs.4,000/- charged on account of plot no.10-P was refunded to the said allottee. 5. It was further asserted that the said allottee Mohd Sayed Shah later transferred his leasehold rights of the said plot in favour of the petitioner herein in the year 2003 and subsequently Plot No.50 of Sector-1 was formally transferred in favour of the petitioner by the Jammu Development Authority vide registered agreement on 10.05.2006; that the petitioner immediately thereafter on 03.06.2006 made an application to the Jammu Development Authority for allotment of the land adjoining to Plot No.50 in his favour and that on this request, the concerned Executive Engineer of the Jammu Development Authority vide his letter dated 01.07.2006 reported that the land adjoining to Plot No. 50 has been planned by the JDA to be carved out as Plot No.50-A as per the revised plan and that the said plot which measures about one kanal of land (5244 Sq.ft) stands already allotted to Respondent No. 4-Vinita Chopra vide allotment No. JDA/RN/8635-04 dated 08.03.2006. 6. The petitioner was intimated that his request cannot be acceded to as the said piece of land numbered as Plot No. 50-A is a huge plot measuring about one kanal and not a strip of land; that the said Plot No.50-A is almost equivalent to the plot of the petitioner, therefore, his request is wholly misconceived and cannot be acceded to. 7. 7. The official respondents have also pleaded that the vacant land in the JDA colonies are always subject to future developments and revised plans and the petitioner cannot claim that there should be no future development to the JDA colonies and the vacant lands/spaces cannot be utilized by the JDA, as such, none of the rights of the petitioner pertaining to his allotment have been violated. It has been further asserted that Respondent No.4, in response to the advertisement issued by the Jammu Development Authority where number of plots of different sizes in different sectors were put to open draw of lots, applied and being successful in draw of lots was allotted the plot in question vide impugned order. It has further been pleaded that the assertion of the petitioner to consider his case on the analogy of plot-61-A having been allotted to the allottee of Plot No. 61 is misplaced as the said strip of land adjoining to Plot No. 61 was an irregular piece of land measuring 7-8 marlas that analogy is of no help to the petitioner as the Plot No. 50-A in question is a full sized plot of about a kanal of land which cannot be termed as a strip by any yardstick. 8. Respondent No.4 allottee of the land in question also filed reply controverting the assertion of the petitioner on the same lines as submitted by the official respondents. 9. During the pendency of this petition, Respondent No.4 Vinita Chopra made a representation on 15.09.2016 to the Jammu Development Authority for exchange of plot in view of the pending litigation and on her representation, the alternative plot bearing No. N-43-A4, Sector-3 measuring 67’-6”x80’ at Roop Nagar Housing Colony, Jammu was allotted to her vide No. JDA/RN/1949-52 dated 19.03.2018 and her allotment of Plot No. 50-A of Sector-1, the subject matter of this litigation was cancelled vide Communication dated 19.03.2018. The Vice-Chairman, Jammu Development Authority Jammu Shiv Kumar Gupta filed a supplementary affidavit in compliance to Order dated 11.05.2023 passed by this Court admitting the aforesaid facts and further submitted that Plot No. 50A has not been allotted to any one and is lying vacant on spot as per the report furnished by the Town Planning Section. The Vice-Chairman, Jammu Development Authority Jammu Shiv Kumar Gupta filed a supplementary affidavit in compliance to Order dated 11.05.2023 passed by this Court admitting the aforesaid facts and further submitted that Plot No. 50A has not been allotted to any one and is lying vacant on spot as per the report furnished by the Town Planning Section. It has further been asserted in supplementary affidavit that the then Chief Town Planner, JDA had reported that the layout plan of Roop Nagar Housing Colony, in compliance to Order dated 10.11.2009 passed in WPPIL No. 5/2005 titled Residents of Roop Nagar Housing Colony Jammu vs JDA & Ors, was revised and the general public was informed regarding modified plan of Roop Nagar Housing Colony, Jammu having been sanctioned by Government of UT of J&K. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petition filed by the petitioner has become infructuous as he had challenged Order No. JDA/RN/8635-04 dated 08.03.2006, whereby Plot No.50-A in Sector-1 had been allotted to Respondent No.4 Vinita Chopra and in view of the cancellation of this order subsequently in the year 2018, this petition has become infructuous. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner, ex adverso, submits that the petition filed by the petitioner was of two foled, one that the order impugned be quashed and second to command and direct the respondents to allot/regularize the strip adjoining his plot in his favour on the payment of usual premium. He further submitted that the petition of the petitioner be allowed and the respondents be directed to allot the adjoining strip to the petitioner as the same is available as submitted by the respondents without being allotted to anyone. 12. Learned counsel for the respondents in reply to this plea submits that the official respondents shall not be averse to consider the plea of the petitioner with regard to allotment, in case, his, plead is qualified in consonance with any policy/Scheme in vogue in accordance with rules under the 13. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, merit consideration. So far as the first relief that the impugned allotment order be quashed, in the backdrop of its cancellation, has been rendered redundant. To the extent of this relief, petition has thus been rendered infractuous. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, merit consideration. So far as the first relief that the impugned allotment order be quashed, in the backdrop of its cancellation, has been rendered redundant. To the extent of this relief, petition has thus been rendered infractuous. So for as other relief of directing respondents to allot the said piece of land/strip to the petitioner is concerned, respondents have show their willingness to consider the petitioner’s plea while dealing with the plot/strip-piece of land, after disposal of this case, as such, petition to the extent of this relief can be disposed of in terms of directions for consideration. 14. For the aforesaid backdrop of the development that the order impugned in this petition whereby Plot No. 50-A had been allotted in favour of Respondent No.4 has been cancelled by the official respondents during the pendency of this petition, the petition to the extent of that relief has become infructuous. Having regard to the submissions of counsels for both the sides, the petition is disposed of with a direction to the official respondents, particularly, Respondent No.1 to consider the plea of the petitioner for allotment of the piece of land numbered as Plot No.50-A, adjacent to the plot of petitioner in accordance with any Scheme/Policy in terms of the rules framed under the Development Act. The plea of the petitioner shall be considered by the official respondents on its own merits. 15. Petition alongwith interim application(s) is, accordingly, disposed of. Interim direction, if any, shall stand vacated. No costs,