Learned counsel appearing for the complainants states on instructions that the proposal given by the appellants for handing over possession of an alternative plot is not acceptable to them. He submits that, in fact, the plots which were allotted to the complainants fall under Revenue Rasta/area, which is yet to be acquired by the government. In other words, his submission is that when the subject plots were allotted, the land did not vest in the appellant company. He submits that this information has been obtained by the complainants under Right to Information Act. Let all these documents be placed on record on an affidavit with advance copy to the learned counsel for the appellant, who will have instructions thereon. We have also put it to learned counsel for the appellant if the amount deposited by the complainants could be refunded to them with a reasonable rate of interest as may be fixed by this Commission. Adjourned to 27th February 2014. FIRST APPEAL NO. 471 OF 2013
For the Appellant : Ms.Sonali Jaitley, Ms.Neha Jain and Mr.Harsimrat Randhawa, Advocates
For the Respondent : NEMO Mr.Harsimrat Randhawa and Ms.Neha Jain, Advocates appearing for Mr.Jaiyesh Bakhshi, counsel for the appellants submit that during the pendency of this appeal, the matter has been settled with the respondent out of court. Learned counsel state that, as per instructions received from the appellants, the appeal is not to be pursued further. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as not pressed. | 
