The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of Rule 17 and Section 87, clarifying their applicability to the case at hand.

ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

( 1 ) LEAVE granted.

( 2 ) CHALLENGE in this appeal is to by a Division Bench of the delhi High Court allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent no. 1

( 3 ) FACTUAL background in a nutshell is as follows: the land to which the present dispute relates was allotted to The Mianwali District Cooperative House Building society Ltd. , Flat No. 3-A, New Qutab Road, Delhi. Father of respondent No. 1 was a member of the Society. Members of the society were entitled to be included in the draw of lots for allotment of land. Before any allotment of land was done, father of respondent No. 1 died on 22. 11. 1974. Respondent no. 1 filed an application for issuance of succession certificate which was allowed on 17. 02. 1986. The Managing Committee of respondent No. 3-Society adopted a resolution transferring the membership of Shri K. K. Satija in favour of respondent no. 1. Thereafter, respondent No. 1 approached the office of the registrar of Cooperative Societies (in short 'the Registrar') for clearance and for forwarding his name for inclusion in the draw of lots by the appellant. On 16. 05. 1994, the Registrar issued a show cause notice to respondent No. 1 as to why his membership of the Society be not cancelled for the reason that he was already owning a residential house at A-120, Saraswati vihar, Delhi. On 13. 10. 1994, an order in this regard was passed by the Registrar. But the membership was restored by the Government in a revision petition filed under Section 80 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 1972 (in short 'the Act' ). A writ petition was filed before the Delhi High Court challenging the non-inclusion of the respondent No. 1's name for allotment. The Delhi High Court passed an order directing clearance of the name of respondent No. 1, since no order was passed in terms of the High Court's order. Two and four weeks' time were granted for inclusion of name and allotment of the plot. Since same was not done contempt proceedings were initiated. In these proceedings, the present appellant was not a party. In the contempt proceedings, a statement was made by the official of the Registrar, Cooperative Societies-respondent No. 2 that the clearance letter for holding draw of lots for allotment of plot of 300 sq. yds. would be issued immediately. Accordingly, the application was disposed of. On 19. 02. 2004, respondent No. 1 approached the appellant for allotment in the draw of lots. At that point of time, the appellant came to know that order relating to inclusion of the name of respondent No. 1 had been passed. Respondent No. 1 filed another writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus against the appellant to allot and handover the plot. The Division Bench allowed the petition and held that there was no substance in the plea raised by the appellant and that the membership of a society and eligibility for a plot are entirely independent issues. It also did not find any substance in the plea that because respondent No. 1 was having another plot in his name, he was ineligible for allotment of a plot in the society. The appellant's contention centred around Rule-17 of the Delhi Development Authority (Disposal of Developed Nazul Land) Rules, 1981 (in short the 'rules' ).

( 4 ) THE High Court held that Rules are not applicable to the case of respondent No. 1.

( 5 ) IN support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that true import of Rule 17 has been lost sight of by the High Court. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that Rule 17 has no application as the land in question was not Nazul land. It was also submitted that Section 87 of the Act on which the appellant has placed reliance, does not apply to the present case.

( 6 ) THE dispute revolves primarily around applicability of rule-17. The same reads as follows:

"17. General restriction to allotment for residential purposes. Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, no plot of Nazul land shall be al