allotted GH-11 for the residence of its employees. The respondents vide order dated 16.8.2010 (Annexure P-3) resumed the GH plot of the petitioner on the ground that the production was not started on the industrial plot within three years, i.e. by 30.3.2009 with a condition that in case the petitioner wanted to retain the GH plot, they had to pay the cost of the GH plot @ ` 5768/- per square meter. Vide letter dated 16.7.2009, the respondents had extended the date of implementation of the project over the industrial plot by one year, i.e. upto 30.3.2010 from 30.3.2009. The petitioner had already started production on the industrial nit prior to 30.3.2010. The construction was completed and all the installments were paid and even the petitioner had applied for final allotment letter and possession thereof. The petitioner filed CWP-16379-2010 challenging the resumption order dated 16.8.2010. The said writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 31.1.2011 to file an appeal. In pursuance thereto, the petitioner filed an appeal which was dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 25.9.2012 against which the petitioner filed CWP-2841-2013 and this Court vide order dated 7.7.2014 quashed the said order with a direction to the Appellate Authority to reconsider the appeal of the petitioner afresh in light of the material placed on record of the said writ petition along with affidavit dated 5.7.2014. In response thereto, the petitioner filed an appeal and the Appellate Authority vide order dated 16.1.2015 (Annexure P-4) dismissed the said appeal. The petitioner challenged the orders (Annexures P-3 and P-4, respectively) by way of CWP-12314-2015 and this Court vide order dated 22.3.2016 (Annexure P- 1) quashed the said orders. Against the order, Annexure P-1, the respondents filed SLP-9359-2017 and the Supreme Court vide order dated
