( 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 ye