SANDEEP MEHTA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the material available on record.

2. These two writ petitions preferred by the petitioners involve common question of facts and law and are thus being decided together by this single order.

3. The petitioners herein claim to have purchased one shop each through registered sale deeds after paying valid consideration in the stilted basement of the multi-storied building known as 'Divya Jyoti Apartment' constructed by the respondent No.4 M/s. Salibhadra Builders. The petitioners claim to be carrying on their respective business in the shops lawfully purchased by them but to their utter shock and surprise, they received notices under Section 91A of the Urban Improvement Trust Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the UIT Act') intimating them that construction of the shoping in question had been raised in contravention to the provisions of the UIT Act as well as the master-plan and so also, against the sanctioned scheme of the Trust and that the construction permission granted by the Trust had also been violated as well. Each petitioner was called upon to show cause as to why the illegally constructed shops shoul