7. The NCT of Delhi, the appropriate government, and the Delhi State Infrastructure and Industrial Development Corporation (DSIIDC) dispute the petition and argue that the landowners are estopped from contending that they were not dispossessed from their lands. They urge that the petitioners applied for compensation; in those documents, they clearly stated that possession of their land had been handed over to the authorities. Copies of those applications are placed on the record. It is also submitted that in addition, the landowners also executed surety bonds, which too indicated that possession had been taken. Counsel for DSIIDC also points out that the arguments of the petitioners are without factual foundation, because after possession of the lands were taken over, they were developed and boundary walls were constructed. Further the contract for development of an industrial area was awarded, along with possession of the acquired lands. Most importantly, it is argued that the petitioners- or at least most of them, had claimed special rehabilitation package (SRP) amounts, in accordance with the Govt. of NCT scheme dated 01.10.2008. It was argued that by the SRP, farmers
