PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

1. LPA No.415/2005 lays a challenge to the judgment and order dated 9.7.2004 pronounced by a learned Single Judge of this Court allowing WP(C) No.1458/1984, in which writ petition, of the 4 prayers made, only first 3 were pressed during arguments and in respect whereof 3 reliefs were granted. The 3 prayers which were pressed read as under:-

“(a) Grant a writ, direction or order in the nature of prohibition restraining the respondents from recovering/levying damages on the properties of the petitioners without any authority of law;

(b) Grant a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to disclose the principle/basis on which such damages are levied.

(c) To declare the respondents cannot impose penalty under the garb of regularization charges.”

2. The 3 directions issued by the learned Single Judge read as under:-

“(i) The alleged unauthorized construction in respect of the lease-hold property belonging to the petitioner No.17 cannot now be demolished;

(ii) The lease in respect of the petitioner No.17’s lease-hold property does not provide for the imposition of any damages by L&DO for temporary regularization of the alleged unauthorized construction.

(iii) The pending demands made by the L&DO from the petitioner No.17 towards temporary regularization of the alleged breaches are quashed and set aside.”

3. Only 8 petitioners joined in a common action when WP(C) No.1458/1984 was filed. Petitioner No.1, Jor Bagh Association Regd. owns no property and was obviously litigating on behalf of its members; and from time to time copetitioners were added when applications for further impleadment were filed, and by the time the judgment was pronounced the number of co-petitioners swelled to 17 and we find that some of them were neither residents nor owners of properties in Jor Bagh. From the relief granted by the learned Single Judge it is apparent that the writ petition was ultimately argued with reference to petitioner No.17, impleaded as respondent No.17 in the appeal; and it concerned a plot of land and building constructed thereon at 17 Prithvi Raj Road, New Delhi. We wonder as to why are the appellants litigating on the issue with respect to other persons who were copetitioners in the writ petition and are impleaded as respondents before us in the appeal; and the reason for our wonder is that no relief has been granted to them. The directions issued by the learned Single Judge, while allowing the writ petition, are singularly in favour of petitioner No.17 before the learned Single Judge and no analogous relief has been granted to the other co-petitioners.

4. Though the reasoning is to the benefit of the other co-petitioners as well, but no relief being granted to them and the writ petition being disposed of only with respect to relief granted in favour of petitioner No.17, in law, it has to be held that qua the other co-petitioners the writ petition is dismissed.

5. Briefly put, the dispute raised in the writ petition was to the demands raised by L&DO, as a condition to condone breaches, either in terms of misuse or construction in excess of what was sanctioned when building plans were passed or constructions effected without any sanction. Qua some writ petitioners, these demands became an issue when under a conversion policy notified by L&DO to convert leasehold tenure to freehold tenure, apart from the conversion charges payable as per the policy, additional demands were raised to regularize the alleged breaches. At that stage the writ petition was filed with 8 co-petitioners and as the journey was travelled, 9 more joined the band wagon.

6. Save and except Jor Bagh Association, which owned no property, the writ petitioners before the learned Single Judge were persons to whom, under a lease-hold tenure, various parcels of land were demised in perpetuity either by L&DO or by the Governor General in Council; the successor-ininterest of whom is L&DO.

7. Since the writ petition has been decided with referenc