/10910/2025 of URMILA SINGH Vs STATE OF U.P. THRU. ADDL. CHIEF SECY. NAGAR VIKAS LKO. AND 3 OTHERS on 19 November 2025

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel representing the State-respondent No.1 and Shri Rajnish Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3- Lucknow Development Authority.

2. This petition has been filed with the following prayers :- "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite party Nos.2 and 3 to deliver the possession over the plot No.CP 12 under Kanpur Road Scheme, Lucknow after executing the sale deed in favour of the petitioner or to allot any alternative plot of same size and location, it is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may also direct the opposite parties to pay at least 18% interest on the amount deposited by the petitioner up to date and heavy cost upon the opposite parties Nos.2 and 3 be also imposed.

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the reallotment of the plot in question i.e. Plot No.CP 12 under Kanpur Road Scheme, Lucknow in favour of the opposite party No.4 made by opposite parties Nos.2 and 3 after summoning the allotment letter from opposite parties No.3.

(iii) Issue any other order or direction as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case in favour of the petitioner.

(iv) Allow the writ petition with costs in favour of the petitioner." Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Umesh Pratap Singh, Nasrul Hasan Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Rajnish Kumar Singh, Ratnesh Chandra Urmila Singh .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Nagar Vikas Lko. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s)

3. We have gone through the instructions, wherein it is stated that the petitioner was initially allotted Plot No.CP 12, Sector D-1, Kanpur Road Scheme, Lucknow. He had to deposit Rs.1,36,233/- latest by 17.04.2007. The petitioner did not deposit the same, as a result of which a notice was published in the newspaper regarding the petitioner and other defaulters on 02.04.2009. The petitioner still did not deposit the amount and on 19.05.2009, his allotment was cancelled, which was in terms of Condition No.19 of the allotment order, which provided that the entire cost of the plot in question should be deposited within 45 days to avail 5% discount on 75% of the sale consideration. The petitioner was allotted the plot in question on 24.04.2004. The entire amount should have been deposited as per the conditions mentioned in the allotment order. The petitioner deposited the same after 54 days and, therefore, the 5% discount as claimed by him on 75% of the sale consideration could not be given to him.

4. Late fees along with compound interest at 21% per annum had to be deposited by 30.11.2006. There are several other amounts mentioned in the said instructions which were not deposited by the petitioner within time.

5. The petitioner has not challenged the order dated 19.05.2009 cancelling his allotment on the ground of non-deposit of the sale consideration. The prayer made in the writ petition cannot be granted, as the petitioner has no subsisting legal right for this Court to issue a mandamus to the respondents to deliver possession of Plot No.CP 12, Sector D-1, Kanpur Road Scheme, Lucknow, when her allotment has been cancelled and the plot in question has already been allotted to respondent No.4.

6. The writ petition stands dismissed, leaving it open for the petitioner to challenge the order of cancellation of allotment in a fresh petition. November 19, 2025 Shubhankar WRIC No. 10910 of 2025 2 (Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) (Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHUBHANKAR THAKUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench