- (1.) THE prayer of the petitioner is to quash the letter dated 23rd February, 1990 as contained in Annexure VI to the writ petition.
(2.) THE aforementioned letter was sent by the Joint Secretary of the Ghaziabad Development Authority, Ghaziabad to the petitioner intimating her that due to unavoidable circumstances the total scheme has been revised in the manner indicated in Annexure-4 attached thereto. Mr. A. N. Bhargava, learned Coun sel for the petitioner, contended that the decision to revise the scheme to the detri ment to the petitioner's interest is ar bitrary, vague and, accordingly, it be quashed. He further contended that as the lands were available for the purposes of scheme and, therefore, the impugned com munication/decision be quashed. Paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit reads thus:- "4. That a scheme for allotment of plots was floated by the answering respondent Authority in 1986 and the size of plots proposed to be allotted was tentative because of the fact that some land for the relevant scheme was under acquisition. But the said acquisition was under challenge in some of the writ petitions before the Supreme Court and stay orders were granted therein restraining the answering respondent Authority not to dispossess the petitioners. Since despite best efforts, some of those writ petitions could not be disposed of as yet and the interim orders by the Hon'ble Court are in force, and in some of them the notifica tions have been quashed by the Hon'ble High Court. The Authority was constrained to decide to reduce the area of the proposed plots propor tionately in view of the land available for allot ment. Apart from the above fact, keeping in view the hard pressing need of housing activity in the capital region, it was considered necessary to reduce the area so that the maximum number of persons may be accommodated and they can be provided accommodation. It is, thus, the proposed size of plots was reduced. "
(3.) PARAGRAPH 12 of the counter af fidavit reads thus:- "12. That the contents of para 7 of the writ petition was denied. The answering respondent Authority is prepared to fulfil the contract on its part provided the petitioner is willing to accept the revised scheme. Allegations to the contrary are incorrect. " It is true that by filing a rejoinder on 11-11-98 it has been stated, inter alia, that details of the writ petitions have not been given and that there was nothing in the scheme that the area of the plot will be reduced but we have no reason to doubt the correctness of the stand taken aforementioned by the Ghaziabad Development Authority especially in regard to the institution of several cases. The petitioner has not brought on the record the brochure of the scheme in ques tion, but Sri Bhargava shows us the brochure of 'pratap Vihar' saying that similar was the brochure under scheme. The brochure of this. scheme contains Clause No. 20, which reads thus:- "20. Important notices. (1) Decision of the Vice-Chairman of Ghaziabad Development Authority will be final in every matter related to this scheme. (2) Houses will be sold on "as is where is" basis and no objection on the construction or the material used in construction will be enter tained. This is also being made clear that no application/request for any alteration or modification in the construction of houses will be entertained. (3) At the time of allotment Ghaziabad Development Authority has a right to change or alter any term or condition of this scheme and all such changes will be acceptable to the ap plicant/allottee. ";