Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri Rajan Tripathi, Advocate, for petitioners; and, learned Standing Counsel and Sri Pradeep Kumar Tripathi, Advocate, for respondents.

2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed by two petitioners, who are brothers, seeking a mandamus commanding respondents-authorities to execute freehold deed of Plots No. 49A and 49 B, Block-F, Govind Nagar, Kanpur Nagar having total area of 596.98 square metres.

3. Brief facts, as stated in the writ petition, are that petitioners are in occupation of land in dispute since 1988. Kanpur Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as “KDA”) announced scheme for regularization on 1.8.1988. The aforesaid advertisement published by KDA has been placed on record as Annexure-1 to the writ petition, which shows that KDA informed to owners of land, who have purchased the same from private/colonizer/housing cooperative societies and raised construction unauthorisedly on the land of Gram Samaj without payment of betterment charges/development charges, that they may get regularisation by submitting regularisation charge/betterment charge at the rate mentioned in the said advertisement. Last date for the submission of application was 30.8.1988. Petitioners submitted an application dated 20.8.1988 after depositing a token money of Rs. 84900/- on 27.3.1991. A letter was issued by Joint Secretary, KDA on 2.5.2000 requiring petitioners to deposit Rs. 11,36,811/- as a lump sum amount in one month or in four quarterly installment each of Rs. 3,33,557/-. Petitioners did not deposit any amount pursuant to the aforesaid letter and thereafter another letter was issued by KDA on 26.10.2004 requiring them to deposit the outstanding dues alongwith interest being Rs. 28,68,719/-. Alleging that petitioners have already made representation dated 18.5.2005, Writ Petition No. 57837 of 2005 was filed which was disposed of on 21.11.2011 with the following directions:

“Heard learned counsel for the parties.

During course of the arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has confined his prayer to decide the representation dated 18.4.2005, appended as Annexure-17 to the writ petition, which is said to be still pending.

In the circumstances, this writ petition is finally disposed of with the direction that representation dated 18.4.2005 may be decided by the authority concerned by a reasoned and speaking order within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is presented before the authority concerned.”

4. In the light of the direction contained in the order dated 21.11.2011 passed by this Court, Vice-Chairman KDA informed petitioners that their request is contrary to the regularization policy since it has been sought to be regularized in 3 names, namely Ram Kumar Khanna, Yashpal Khanna and Krishna Kumar Khanna and if it is to be regularized separately, it will result in area of less than 200 square meters in respect to each person which is contrary to Scheme. He further informed that now regularisation has been stopped by Government Order dated 23.8.2004 and subsequently by Government Order dated 8.7.2010, it was informed to KDA that regularisation of unauthorised and illegal possession is not permissible and cannot be allowed.

5. Another demand notice was issued by KDA on 25.4.2013 referring to the Government Order dated 29.11.2011 demanding a sum of Rs. 42,79,548/- after adjusting the amount already paid by petitioners. The aforesaid demand is in the name of two petitioners and one Ram Kumar. Petitioners claimed that they have deposited Rs. 42,80,000/- on 28.4.2013 but no further action has been taken by KDA till date, hence a representation was also made on 15.2.2015 but nothing has been.

6. Respondents-2, 3 and 4, i.e., KDA and its authorities have contested the matter by filing counter-affidavit stating that after 1988, another scheme was announced and published on 21.2.1991 offering regularization by depositing 1/4 o