( 1 ) THE petitioner was a person who owned land in Village Pootkalan. His land was acquired by issuance of notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act for the planned development of Delhi.

( 2 ) THE petitioner put forth his claim for allotment of an alternative plot of land. The Delhi Administration recommended that a plot measuring 250 sq. yards be allotted to the petitioner in the North Zone.

( 3 ) THE contention of the petitioner in this writ petition is that he is entitled to a developed plot of 250 sq. yards in the North Zone, preferably in Rohini Residential Scheme or in Pitam Pura Residential Scheme or in Prashant Vihar Residential Scheme at the price prevailing in 1987-88 which had been fixed. The petitioner is also claiming, in the alternative, a plot of land out of the plots which were proposed to be auctioned by the respondent in Rohini.

( 4 ) IT was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has aright for allotment of an alternative plot and this right flows from the provisions of Section 21 of the Delhi Development Act.

( 5 ) A Full Bench of this Court in C. Writ No. 623/91 (Ramanand v. UOI), vide judgment dated 30th July, 1993 (26) DRJ 594 has come to the conclusion that the provisions of Section 21 are not applicable in a case like the present because the land was Nazul land and the same is to be disposed of according to Section 22 of the Delhi Development Act, read with Nazul Rules. It was, therefore, not open to the petitioner to contend that Section 21 is applicable in the present case. In view of the decision in Ramanand s case (supra) we come to the conclusion that Section 21 of the Delhi Development Act is of no help to the petitioner because the land in question has not been transferred to the DDA, which is one of the pre-requisites of the applicability of the Section 21, and the land is Nazul land which can be disposed of according to Nazul Rules.

( 6 ) IT was sought to be contended that the land. was acquired for planned development of Delhi and this could only be done under Section 15 of the Delhi Development Act and, therefore, the land which was acquired could only be dealt with according to the provisions of Section 21 of the Act.

( 7 ) THIS is putting the same wine in a different bottle. As has been observed already, the land in question is a Nazul land and has not been transferred to the DDA. Therefore, Section 21 does not come into play. As regards Sectiion 15, the said provision does contemplate land being acquired for the purpose of development but that is not synornymous with "planned development of Delhi". In the present case land has been acquired by the Central Government under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act for the planned development of Delhi. Thereafter, land has been placed at the disposal of the DDA as Nazul land and the entitlement of the petitioner has been considered by the Delhi Administration under Rule 6 of the Nazul Rules.

( 8 ) IT was submitted that the land of the petitioner was situated in Rohini and, therefore, he should be allotted a plot in the same locality. It will be seen from the letter of entitlement issued by the Delhi Administration that the plot is to be allotted to the petitioner in North Zone. The scheme of allotment of the respondent- DDA is that the plots are allotted zone-wise and not locality wise. Whether the alternative plots should be allotted zone-wise or locality-wise is a matter of policy. We do not find that the policy of the respondent to allot land or plots zone-wise is so arbitrary as to call for any interference by this Court.

( 9 ) IT has been explained by the learned counsel for the respondent that the allotment, zone-wise, is made by the computer and, therefore, the chances of favouritism stand eliminated. In Ramanand s case (supra) although it was held that there is no right to allotment of an alternative plot, but nevertheless, all the persons whose lands were acq