SWATANTER KUMAR, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner on the strength of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India is demanding parity in relation to allotment of ?land in lieu of acquired land? as was done in the case of acquisition of property at 26, Alipur Road, Sham Nath Marg, Delhi. In other words, the petitioner prays for issuance of a direction to the respondents requiring them to allot to petitioner 798 square meter of land in the Lucknow Road, (Mall Road), Delhi as an alternative to award of compensation in terms of the provisions of Land Acquisition Act. The emphasis is that in the adjacent property to that of the petitioner i. e 26 Alipur Road, Sham Nath Marg the respondents have given to the owner of the property, M/s Jindal Pipes Ltd. equal land to the acquired land on the adjoining Lucknow Road (Mall Road) and not only this, in addition to grant of land even some compensation has been paid to that party and now the respondents cannot treat the petitioner differently and otherwise also his case is similar to that of M/s Jindal Pipes Ltd. To examine the merit of this patently simple but giving rise to some complex issue, it would be appropriate to refer to the basic facts.

( 2 ) THE petitioner is owner of properties bearing no. 13, 15 and 17, Sham Nath Marg, Delhi-54. On 12. 6. 97 the respondents have issued notification under Section 4 and 17 of the Land Acquisition Act inter alia acquiring the property Nos. 13 and 15, Sham Nath Marg for Mass Rapid Transport System of Delhi. Award No. 2/1999-2000 was made on 27. 7. 1999. Another notification was issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act acquiring another chunk of 15, Sham Nath Marg. A notification under Section 17 was also issued on 18. 1. 2000. In furtherance to the said notification award was made on 25. 5. 2001. Still another notification was issued by the respondents under Section 4 and 17 (1) of the Act on 11. 2. 05. By this notification, the respondents acquired an area of 798 square meter from the property known as 15, Sham Nath Marg. According to the petitioner, the respondents have not fully paid and settled the compensation of his land which was acquired by earlier two notifications and the notification dated 11. 2. 05 has lapsed as no declaration under Section 6 has been issued by the respondents within the prescribed period. However, during the pendency of the present writ petition the respondents even issued another fresh notification under Section 4 acquiring the same land of 798 square meter dated 10. 5. 06 to overcome the difficulty arising from lapse of the earlier notification dated 11. 2. 05. Thereafter, the respondents have also issued a declaration under Section 6 dated 11. 5. 06. Obviously, no compensation has been paid to the claimants so far in relation to the acquisition of his land. On this premise the petitioner submits that petitioner has a legal right for allotment of land for land in terms of Section 31 (3) of the Act, particularly when the respondents have already entered into an exchange deed, Land for Land, in favour of M/s Jindal Pipes Ltd. and had even paid compensation in addition thereto. The respondents cannot discriminate the petitioner in not allotting him equal area of land at a place similar to that already allotted to the other party. In order to establish his claim in that behalf, the petitioner had also made a representation on 1. 2. 05 to the respondents but since no response was received from the respondents, the petitioner was compelled to file the present writ petition. Separate counter affidavits were filed on behalf of the respondents no. 1 and 4. The facts are hardly in dispute. It is not seriously disputed that the previous notification issued under Section 4 of the Act dated 11. 2. 05 has already lapsed and in lieu thereof they have already issued another notification under Section 4 dated 10. 5. 06 and a declaration under Section 6 dated 11. 5. 06. While contesting the claim of the petitioner for entitleme