Hon’ble Rajan Roy, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the State of U.P. and Shri Ramendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for opposite party No. 2, i.e., New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as “NOIDA”) and perused the record.

2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioners have sought a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents, inter alia, (i) to allot a corner plot measuring 138.98 sq. mtrs situated in Sector 14 Noida or in nearby sector, (ii) to direct the respondents to refund the amount of stamp duty charged by them on lease deed with interest, (iii) to direct the respondents to refund a sum of Rs. 2,73,325/- which has been illegally realized by them and (iv) to refund a sum of Rs. 52,920/- illegally charged as lease rent. A further direction has been sought in respect of plot No. A-2, Sector 14, Noida allotted to Shri Chandra Prakash Chawla for fixing the responsibility of the officers of respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

3. The factual background, which has led to the filing of the instant writ petition, is as under:

A plot No. A-1 in Sector 14, Noida, was allotted by “NOIDA” to one Shri R.G. Ahuja on 31.3.1980 and a lease deed was executed in his favour on 3.3.1981. The said plot was transferred to several persons from time to time. Ultimately, it was transferred in favour of petitioners by the erstwhile owner/lessee Shri Sharad C. Das on 8.12.2004 for a consideration of Rs. 30 lacs.

4. The aforesaid plot alongwith adjacent plot No. A-2 was proposed to be acquired for construction of Noida Metro Rail.

5. Accordingly, on 19.6.2006, an offer was made by “NOIDA” to the petitioners to either take back the entire amount paid by them in respect of their plot, measuring 588.98 sq. mtrs alongwith simple interest or, as far as possible, another plot of equal area and in an equivalent Sector would be allotted.

6. In response to the aforesaid offer, the petitioners submitted an option on 20.6.2006. According to the petitioners, the option submitted by them was; firstly, for allotment of a plot in an equivalent sector and if that was not possible and another plot of lesser area was allotted, then they should be paid the cost of the difference of the area between the earlier plot and the subsequent plot.

7. Thereafter, the possession of the original plot No. A-1 was given back by the petitioners on 22.6.2006 and another plot bearing plot No. A-56 situated in Block A of Sector 44, Noida of lesser area measuring 450 sq. mtrs, was allotted to them. The terms and conditions of the allotment were also mentioned in the allotment order dated 22.6.2006.

8. A lease deed in respect of the aforesaid plot was executed and registered on 7.6.2007 by “NOIDA” in favour of the petitioners. The consideration paid for the earlier plot was adjusted against the consideration for the new plot and in addition an amount of Rs. 52,92,000/- was further charged as consideration.

9. Within 6 months of getting possession of the aforesaid plot No. A-56 in Sector 44, Noida, the petitioners sold the same on 27.12.2007 for a consideration of Rs. 1,80,00,000/-.

10. After having sold out the plot in question, the petitioners allege to have sent a representation to the Chief Minister of U.P. on 31.12.2007 alleging discrimination and unfair treatment by “NOIDA” and seeking allotment of another plot measuring 138.98 sq. metres in Noida in lieu of lesser area of plot having been allotted to them as mentioned above. A refund of the amount paid by them for getting the lease deed executed was also sought on the ground that instead of executing an exchange deed, as was done in the case of Shri Chandra Prakash Chawla the allottee of adjacent plot A-2, Sector 14 of Noida, a lease deed had been executed in their favour.

11. A notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure is also said to have been sent to “NOIDA” on 9.4.2008.

12. Against the aforesaid factual background, as the grievance o