Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:34630-DB Court No. - 21 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 38318 of 2024 Petitioner :- Sanjay Mishra @ Avinash Mishra Respondent :- State Of Up And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vageesh Pandey,Vandana Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- Ambrish Shukla,Anuj Pratap Singh,C.S.C. Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J. Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J. 1.The reply filed today by counsel for the petitioner is taken on record. 2. The instant petition has been filed praying for quashing of the order dated 03.03.2020 passed by respondent no. 4 cancelling the allotment of Plot No. D-53 P.C. Mati Industrial Area, Jainpur, Kanpur Dehat. The allotment has been cancelled on ground that the petitioner has failed to raise constructions over the allotted plot. 3. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner was allotted Plot No. D-53 vide allotment letter dated 13.12.2002. In terms of the allotment letter, the petitioner was supposed to construct a residential building over it within five years. The case of the petitioner is that he had deposited the entire sum under allotment order and No Dues Certificate was issued to him by the Authority on 23.04.2007. However, the respondent - Authority failed to provide basic amenities like approach road, electricity and water connection. The petitioner, therefore, could not make any development. The alleged show cause notices dated 16.03.2018 and 30.10.2019 were not served upon the petitioner and in gross violation of principles of natural justice, the respondent - Authority proceeded to cancel the allotment vide impugned order dated 03.03.2020. The petitioner filed representation on 02.07.2022 upon coming to know of the cancellation order. In the said application he prayed for restoration of the allotment. However, when no action was taken on the said representation the petitioner filed another representation on 19.11.2022. It seems that ultimately the application of the petitioner for restoration of allotment was considered by the respondent - Authority. The Incharge, Industrial Area, UPSIDA sought information from Regional Manager, UPSIDA Hq., Kanpur. In the said communication, it is noted that under Operating Manual in cases where entire allotment money has been paid, there is no provision to cancel the allotment. Consequently, information was sought as to how many allotments were made in the said Scheme and what is the stage of constructions by the other allottees and what action has been taken against them in case of default. In the backdrop narrated above, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the cancellation order. 4. On 16.12.2024, the following order was passed : "1. The respondent no. 4-Regional Manager/Chief Executive Officer, UPSIDA, Lakhanapur, Kanpur Nagar, shall file his personal affidavit and disclose:- (a) What development was carried out by Authority by the date the plot was cancelled i.e. 3.3.2020; (b) The development which took place since that date; (c) How many industrial plots lie in the vicinity and whether any manufacturing unit/building has been constructed over any adjoining plot; and (d) In case full development has not taken place, the reason therefor. 2. Sri Ambrish Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent-Development Authority undertakes to communicate the instant order to respondent no. 4 for necessary compliance. 3. List as fresh on 15.1.2025." 5. In compliance of the said order, respondent no. 4 has filed his affidavit in which he has relied on a recent internal communication dated 02.01.2025 mentioning that the basic amenities were provided in the area long back. In para-5 it is fairly admitted that in the said block there were in all 34 plots numbering Plot No. D- 31 to Plot No. D-64. Out of these, only allottees of two plots have constructed buildings. No construction has been made on the remaining plots. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the said information was also sought by Incharge, Industrial Area, UPSIDA vide communication dated 10.01.2023 but it seems that it was not furnished. He submits that it is clear from the affidavit of respondent no. 4 that the Authority is acting in a totally arbitrary and discriminatory manner in taking action against some allottees whereas not taking any action against other allottees, who have also not made any construction so far. 7. We inquired from Sri Ambrish Shukla, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 4, as to what action has been taken by the Authority against identically situated allottees. He concedes that no action has been taken against them so far. 8. It is noteworthy that although, the stand taken by respondent no. 4 that development work was complete long back but apart from internal communication no evidence has been brought on record as to when the development of the area was completed. Moreover, the action of the respondent - Authority as against the petitioner cancelling the allotment while not taking any action against similarly situated allottees, is ex-facie illegal and discriminatory. We, therefore, do not approve of the action taken against the petitioner. The impugned order is quashed leaving it open to the respondent - Authority to take fresh decision in accordance with law. 9. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. (Anish Kumar Gupta, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.) Order Date :- 10.3.2025 gp Digitally signed by :- GANESH PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad