Hon’ble Ashok Bhushan, J.—These three writ petitions raising common questions of law, have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.

2. Writ Petition No. 55845 of 2009 (Mr. Puran Singh and others v. State of U.P. and others) is being treated as leading writ petition in which counter-affidavit, supplementary counter-affidavit, rejoinder-affidavit and supplementary rejoinder-affidavit have been filed. It is sufficient to refer to pleadings of the aforesaid writ petition for deciding all the three writ petitions.

3. We have heard Sri N.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Ramendra Pratap Singh appearing for respondent No. 2 and learned Standing Counsel.

4. Brief facts, as emerge from pleadings of the parties in Writ Petition No. 55845 of 2009 are; the petitioners claim to be resident of village Harola, district Gautam Budh Nagar. The land of father of petitioner No. 1 being Khasra No. 823 area 0-16-13 was acquired by the respondents. Similarly the land of father of petitioner No. 2 being Khasra No. 143 and 7 other plots was acquired by the respondents in the year 1976. The compensation of the land was received by the father of both the petitioners. The respondent No. 2 was constituted under the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Area Development Act, 1976 for development of area as notified by the State Government. The respondent No. 2, Authority, is empowered to sell, lease or otherwise transfer by way of auction, allotment or otherwise any land or building belonging to it in the industrial development area. Several schemes for allotment of plots of different categories were floated by respondent No. 2. In the present case, it is sufficient to refer to two schemes, namely, NOIDA Residential Plots Scheme-2004(1) and NOIDA Residential Plots Scheme for Prescribed Reserved Categories-2006(1). In 2004(1) Scheme the brother of petitioner No. 1 Prem Singh had applied for allotment of residential plot. After certain litigation regarding draw of lots with regard to Scheme 2004(1) final draw of lots was declared on 8th November, 2008. The 2006(1) Scheme was initiated in which both the petitioners have made applications for allotment as heirs of deceased tenure holders. On 26th October, 2006 names of eligible applicants were declared in which names of both the petitioners were included as eligible applicants. A writ petition being Writ Petition No. 60412 of 2006 was filed in this Court challenging the eligibility in which this Court passed an interim order on 7th November, 2006 staying the further process which writ petition was ultimately disposed of on 19th February, 2009 directing the Authority to consider the representations of the petitioners of that writ petition. A news item was published in the newspaper by the Authority notifying the names of applicants found eligible with details of those applicants who on inquiry were not found eligible by giving brief reason for ineligibility. The notice further stated that any objection with regard to above be submitted alongwith the documents by 12th July, 2009. Against the name of petitioner No. 1 (Puran Singh) it was mentioned that his brother Prem Singh who was legal heir of Kunwar Singh has been allotted a plot in Residential Scheme 2004(1). Puran Singh, the petitioner No. 1 was stated to be ineligible on the ground that only one of the legal heirs was entitled for allotment. Against petitioner No. 2 it was mentioned that applicant Dalchand and his brother Ram Kumar were heirs of original tenure holder Horam Singh. Ram Kumar, the brother of Dalchand (petitioner No. 2), was allotted residential plot under the Scheme 2004(1) and only one heir being entitled for allotment, the applicant Dalchand was said to be ineligible. After considering the objection, final list was declared on 5th September, 2009 in which both the petitioners were held to be ineligible. The second stage of allotment was undertaken on 1st October, 2009. The petitioners being aggrieved