The main legal point established in the judgment is that the cause of action and the reliefs sought must have a direct nexus with the jurisdiction where the court is located in order for the court to have territorial jurisdiction.

( 1 ) THESE Letter Patent Appeals having arisen out of a common judgment and involving similar questions of law were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. However, we may consider the fact of the matter from the file of lpa 66/2001 arising out of CWP 1950/2000.

( 2 ) THE petitioner is a registered association. Its members allegedly have entered into agreements with the fourth respondenent for purchase of freehold plots at Okhla Enclave in the State of Haryana. The respondent No. 4 allegedly had booked thousands of plots without obtaining requisite licence as is mandatorily required in terms of Section 7 of the Haryana Development and regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to for the sake of brevity as "the Act" ). Allegedly, the respondent No. 4 kept the purchasers at dark to the effect that although specific plots were being booked, approval for development and setting up of colony itself had not been obtained in terms of the provisions of the said Act. Allegedly, the official respondents had issued advertisements in the newspapers stating that the said respondents had been acting illegally in receiving applications and monies for allotment of the land without the requisite licence. It had been contended that although the respondent No. 4 gave out the impression that Director, Town and Country Planning, Haryana had provisionally fixed the development charges at Rs. 329. 00 per sq. yard, petitioners and other members were called upon to pay Rs. 50. 00 per sq. yard on or before 15 of February 1992 and the balance amount of Rs. 279. 00 per sq. yard within two years. It is further alleged that the respondent No. 4/08/1994 claimed that the Director, Town and Country Planning, had fixed the final development charges for plots up to 161 sq. yards @ Rs. 878 per sq. yard and for plots up to 263 sq. yards at Rs. 975. 00 per sq. yard without disclosing that the said rates included land costs.

( 3 ) THE fourth respondent entered into a Memorandum of understanding with the purchasers fixing the development charges at Rs. 550. 00 per sq. yards but in breach of the said agreement, failed to deliver possession and thus cheated a number of plot holders. Several writ petitions were filed in the Apex court such as 113/96, 477/96, 792/96 and 876/96 wherein the petitioners were not parties and therein the apex court issued the following directions:

"all the same, we direct each allottee to pay a sum of Rs. 50. 00 per square yard within 4 weeks from today to the government of Haryana in the account of the colonizer. We direct the colonizer to put each allottee in possession of the respective plot within 2 weeks therefrom. The balance amount, if any, payable by each allottees will be worked out and fixed up later. If the amount specified above is not paid within the period of 4 weeks the colonizer is not obliged to put the defaulting allottee in possession of the plot concerned. To avoid further complications regarding payment and acceptance, we make it clear that it is sufficient that the amount is sent by draft by registered post to the Director, town and Country Planning, Chandigarh (Haryana), if personal delivery is not found feasible. The remittance of the amount shall immediately be communicated to the colonizer in writing by registered post by the remitter. "

( 4 ) UPON directions of the Supreme Court, the government renewed the licences granted to the fourth respondent with effect from 1993-94 as the licence had expired. However, notices had been issued upon the fourth respondent in terms of Section 8 of the said Act which was served upon him at Delhi. Two further show cause notices were issued. By a judgment dated 2/12/1999, the Supreme Court directed that the allottees be put in possession on payment of Rs. 50 per sq. yard whereupon they were put in possession. However, when some other allottees filed writ petitions before the supreme Court, the same were dismissed by