( 1 ) PETITIONERS claim that their legitimate expectations canaot be defeated by DDA, midstream changing its policy to allot plots of 60 sq. mts. instead of 90 sq. mts. to them. Promisory estopple is invoked against DDA. Response of DDA is that it held out no promise to allot 90 sq. mts. plot to the petitioners. It s scheme under which, petitioners applied, clearly provided that DDA had a right to allot smaller plots. It is pleaded that action of DDA is guided by public interest, in that, available land being less and registrants still waiting for being allotted a plot; to accommodate all within the available land, DDA had but no option other than to reduce the plot size. DE)A pleads that petitioners had no right, much less indefeasible right to be allotted a plot measuring 90 sq. mts.

( 2 ) IN the year 1981, DDA floated its Rohini Residential Scheme 1981 whereunder it sought registration from individuals for being allotted a plot of land for residential purposes. In the MIG category, two preferences (not options) were given to the registrants: (i) to prefer for a 90 sq. mts. plot, and (ii) to prefer for a 60 sq. mts plot.

( 3 ) AS per the scheme, plots had yet to be developed. Salient features of the scheme, on which parties relied in support of their respective stands may be noted at the outset. Object of the scheme was listed Under the caption housing STRATEGY*. Inter alia, under the said caption it was stated:- as a measure of social justice the layout of the residential areas has been planned to give as much as 97% plots to the economically weaker sections and low and middle income groups.

( 4 ) UNDER the caption terms and CONDITIONS, inter alia, following was provided:

(I) Individuals in the EWS/janta category are entitled for a plot of 26 sq. mts. Those in LIG for plots of 32 and 48 sq. mts. and MIG for plots of 60 and 90 sq. mts.

(II) The allotment of plots will be made in phases spread over five years by draw of lots among the eligible applicants and different draws will be held for different categories. The DDA reserves the right to create categories and lay down priorities. DDA shall refund the deposits with interest in case plot applied for cannot be made available.

(III) The DDA reserves the right to allot a different size of plot in the same category.

(IV) After the allotment has been confirmed by the competent authority, the successful applicant will be informed in writing of the plot allotted to him which he will be bound to accept and he will be required, within such time as may be specified, to pay the balance premium.

( 5 ) IT is apparent that under the scheme, DDA did not guarantee a firm allotment of a plot evidenced by the term DDA shall refund the deposits with interest in case plot applied for cannot be made available. Further DDA had a right to allot a plot of different size in the same category, evidenced by the terms the DDA reserves the right to allot a different size of plot in the same category. Further, right to be allotted a plot would mature on the applicant being allotted a specific plot at a draw held and confirmed by the competent authority and the registrant accepting the same, evidenced by a conjoint reading of the terms the allotment of plots will be made in phases spread over five years by draw of lots among the eligible applicants, and the term after the allotment has been confirmed by the competent authority, the successfully applicant will be informed in writing of the plot allotted to him which he will be bound to accept.

( 6 ) ANOTHER important facet may be noted. The form of the application to be submitted by the registrant was provided by the DDA and all applicants were required to apply as per said form. Column 6 (v) (b) of the form reads as under: give the size of the plot required i. e. 6/32/48/60/90 sq. mts. in order of preference according to your category.

( 7 ) THUS, plot size indicated by the applicant was a mere order of preference.

( 8 ) AS sta