JUDGMENT

NATARAJAN, J. :— Leave granted in all the special leave petitions.

2. These appeals arise out of a common order passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in a batch of writ petitions filed by the respondents in the appeals before us.

3. The 1st appellant Haryana Urban Development Authority (referred to as HUDA) was put in possession of land near the border of Haryana State and Delhi comprised in several sectors including Sectors 22, 23 & 23-A (Phase- 11) in District Gurgaon, Haryana State by the State Government of Haryana for augmenting the resources of the State by developing the land and parcelling out sites and selling them at commercial rates and giving the sale proceeds to the Government less the charges incurred for development works. In accordance with the scheme, HUDA developed the land and parcelled out plots for allotment for housing purposes and advertised for sale of plots. As there were numerous applicants for the plots, the selection of allottees was done by draw of lots. The respondents in these appeals were among the successful drawees in the lots so drawn but it so happened that 306 drawees including the respondents could not be given the plots drawn in their favour because of two unexpected developments. One was that the State Government had released from acquisition a certain extent of land in favour of the owners viz. M/s. Usha Stud Farm and the second was that some of the owners of a portion of the acquired land had filed writ petitions before the High Court to challenge the validity of the acquisition proceedings. The writ petitions were dismissed by the High Court but were remitted back by this Court for reconsideration by the High Court and consequently the writ petitions are again pending consideration before the High Court. As a consequence of these developments, HUDA could not hand over plots to all the 306 drawees whose plots fell either in the area of the land released from acquisition or. in the area of land forming the subject matter of litigation before the High Court. Consequently, HUDA offered all the 306 drawees alternate plots in Sectors 31-A, 32-A Part, 30, 39, 40 and 41. The alternate plots offered for allotment are not proximate to the Delhi Haryana border area and secondly the rates quoted for them were higher than the rates quoted for the plots originally offered.

4. Out of the 306 drawees, 278 applicants accepted the alternate plots offered to them by HUDA in the other sectors and paid the rates fixed for those plots. However, the respondents herein were not prepared to accept the alternate plots offered to them and filed writ petitions before the High Court for allotment of plots in the original sectors themselves viz. Sectors 22, 23 and 23-A. The High Court by a common order allowed the writ petitions and directed HUDA "to allot a plot each to the petitioners in the same sectors to which each has been held entitled for allotment, on the same terms and conditions as if the plot now to be allotted was originally allotted" and further directed that "the allotment of plots should be done within a period of one month and till then the allotment and auction of plots in these sectors be kept stayed." Against the said order of the High Court, HUDA and the State have preferred these appeals.

5. The contention of HUDA in the writ petitions as well as in these appeals is that HUDA cannot be compelled to allot alternate plots to the writ petitioners in the same sectors because it is not the owner of the plotted lands but is only an agency for developing the lands and parcelling them out into plots and selling them to the successful allottees at commercial rates and therefore when the plots became unavailable for allotment due to factors beyond its control, HUDA was entitled to plead novation of contract but by way of concession HUDA had offered alternate plots to the 306 drawees in other sectors and 278 of the 306 drawees have realised this position and accepted the offer of alternate