Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.:—

1. These intra-court appeals impugn the common judgment dated 04.10.2012 of the learned Single Judge dismissing W.P.(C) Nos. 5245/2008 & 1509/2002 preferred by the appellants respectively. The counsels for all the respondents appear on advance notice/caveat.

2. The appellant in LPA No.769/2012, in or about the year 2002 filed the writ petition aforesaid seeking a mandamus to the respondent DDA to execute necessary documents and complete the formalities in respect of allotment of a plot of land admeasuring 1890.60 sq. yds. earmarked for nursery school in the colony of Chirag Enclave, New Delhi to the appellant Chiragh Cooperative House Building Society (CCHBS); the allotment made of the said land by the DDA in favour of the respondent Tagore Education Society (Regd.) (TES) was also impugned and cancellation thereof sought. It was inter alia the case of the appellant CCHBS, i) that the DDA had allotted the land ad-measuring 16.7 acres to it for development of a colony which came to be known as Chirag Enclave, New Delhi; ii) that the appellants CCHBS obtained sanction of the Layout Plan of the said colony and developed a colony thereon comprising of plots of land which were allotted in favour of the members of CCHBS and in whose favour Perpetual Lease Deeds thereof executed; iii) that in the Layout Plan so sanctioned, a plot admeasuring 1890.60 sq. yds. was earmarked for a nursery school; iv) that the appellant CCHBS was in control of the said plot also and was maintaining the same; v) that the DDA however demanded additional amounts from the appellant CCHBS for the said land earmarked for the nursery school as well as for another plot of land in the colony earmarked for a Club; vi) that vide letter dated 21.06.1979, the DDA communicated to the appellant CCHBS the decision to allot the land earmarked for Club and nursery School to the appellant CCHBS and though disclosed the rates for such allotment but assured to separately intimate the terms and conditions for allotment; vii) that the appellant CCHBS immediately protested against the unreasonable demand and asked the DDA vide letter dated 29.06.1979 to reconsider its decision; viii) that though the appellant CCHBS thereafter continuously made representations seeking waiver of the unjustified and unreasonable demand in respect of the nursery school plot but to no avail; ix) that ultimately in the year 1999, the appellant CCHBS approached the Lieutenant Governor also; x) that it was only in response thereto that the DDA for the first time vide letter dated 08.12.1999 asked the appellant CCHBS to furnish some more documents; xi) that the appellant CCHBS protested contending that the land already stood allotted to the appellant CCHBS in the year 1979 and thus the question of the appellant CCHBS providing any further documents did not arise; xii) that thereafter also though on representations, assurances were meted out but the appellant CCHBS on 04.02.2002 learnt that the said plot had been allotted by the DDA to the respondent TES, and which led to the filing of the writ petition from which this appeal arises.

3. The contention of the appellant CCHBS in W.P.(C) No.1509/2002 was that the nursery school plot not only already vested in it, upon the entire land on which the colony was developed being allotted to it, but had again been allotted to it in June, 1979 as aforesaid and DDA was thus not entitled to allot it to the respondent TES.

4. It appears that vide an interim order in the said writ petition, TES was restrained from constructing over the said land.

5. DDA contested the writ petition pleading that the plot as per the Layout Plan of the colony was earmarked for nursery school and had been allotted to TES and possession thereof already stood delivered. It was also the plea of the DDA that the land underneath the colony, besides the residential plots, vested in the DDA and DDA was free to allot it to anyone it liked.

6. TES also filed a counter af