( 1 ) AT the hearing held on 23. 11. 2004, Ms. Anjana gosain pressed the petition only on behalf of the first petitioner.

( 2 ) BY way of the present petition, petitioners pray that directions be issued to the respondents to restore land from where the petitioners were dispossessed during emergency and petitioners be compensated for loss suffered due to demolition of their houses. Alternative prayer made is that petitioners be allotted land in a new area.

( 3 ) IN para 2 of the writ petition, petitioners claim parity with claim made by writ petitioners of WP (C) No. 135/1980-32 (1987) DLT 23, Madan Lal sharma and Ors. v. UOI and Ors.

( 4 ) CASE of the petitioners is that they purchased a plot of land in a colony called Pandav Nagar, Block-L. Petitioner No. 1 is stated to have purchased land vide sale deed dated 19. 11. 1971. Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 claimed to have purchased a plot each vide sale deed dated 17. 2. 1972. As per the petitioners, they constructed a house on the plot purchased by him. On 1. 1. 1976, during emergency, houses in Block-L, Pandav Nagar were demolished. Occupants were removed to Kalyan Puri, a J. J. resettlement colony. Petitioners were put in possessior of a plot admeasuring 25 sq. yds. in Kalyanpuri at a monthly ental of Rs 8. 50.

( 5 ) PE itioners plead as under:

"the sale deed holders like the petitioners were told to give the option as to whether they like to get a flat on payment of full market price, in the alternative they were told to give preference for 80 sq. yards plots in gonda (Plots situated at 39 kms. from Delhi ). However, in the meantime, the petitioners were told to stay on 25 square yards plots on a rental basis. Even the allotment of 80 sq. yards plots at Gonda could be made only if the petitioners deposited immediately cash payment of Rs. 4,000/- which the petitioners were not in a position to do, having already lost their houses and lands. It was also clarified that if any of the petitioners get a plot of land or flat as aforesaid, then, they would not get the land on rental basis at J. J. Resettlement Scheme. "

( 6 ) IT is further stated by the petitioners that on 16,2. 1977, Government took a decision to regularize all unauthorized colonies. As a consequence thereof, pandav Nagar which was an unauthorized colony became entitled for regularization. Petitioners stated that had they not been evicted, they would have got the benefit of regularization in terms of the policy dated 16. 2. 1977.

( 7 ) IT is the case of the petitioner that on 24. 5. 1978, DDA issued a public notice notifying that it had decided to re-settle the persons displaced in Delhi during emergency to the original place or in the nearby residential areas. Applicants were notified that they should apply under the decision aforesaid on or before 30. 6. 1978. The public notice has been annexed as annexure C to the writ petition.

( 8 ) PETITIONERS claiim to have submitted the requisite applications. Since, petitioners were not offered any alternative plot and were not even re-settied from the land where they were displaced, present petition was filed praying as noted in para 5 above.

( 9 ) COUNTER affidavit has not been filed by the DDA.

( 10 ) DOCUMENTS filed by the petitioners would reveal that land on which illegal colonization of Block-L, Pandav Nagar took place were acquired vide award No. O6/71-72. Post acquisition, possession of land was transferred to the Delhi Development Authority.

( 11 ) DOCUMENT at page 53 of the writ record, being letter dated 26,10. 1983, addressed by DDA to the first petitioner would reveal that DDA had informed her that for being entitled to an alternative plot in lieu of the acquired land, she should have her case recommended from Delhi Administration. This appears to be for the reason that under the large scale acquisition of land policy in Delhi, persons whose lands are acquired for purposes of planned development of delhi are entitled to be considered for allotm