AJAY RASTOGI, J. - (1.) COUNSEL for petitioner submits that other writ petitions involving identical question were decided vide order dt.24/01/2011 (Ann.5) in CWP -509/2010 & cognate cases directing the respondents to consider the application of petitioners independently without being influenced pending litigation on merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
(2.) Counsel for petitioner submits that requisite fee was deposited for allotment of alternative sites and the same was considered at one stage but at a later stage, their applications were rejected on the premise of their matters being subjudice before other courts and that being so, their case has not been examined independently on merits by District Collector vide order dt.15/07/2011 (Ann.6). Counsel further submits that as regards request for allotment of alternative site there is no dispute pending and the petitioner undertakes that if their application is considered independently for allotment of alternative site under rehabilitation Scheme introduced by the State Government, he will withdraw all their application/disputes pending in respective courts.
(3.) TAKING note of submission (supra), this Court considers it appropriate to direct the respondents to consider application of the petitioner independently without being influenced pending litigation on merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within two months of submission of certified copy of this order.;