Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:15611-DB Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 2503 of 2025 Petitioner :- Vandana Kumari Shrivastava Respondent :- Lucknow Development Authority Thru. Vice Chairman Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Punit Kumar Srivastava,Abhishek Mishra,Ishank Srivastava,Rakesh Srivastava,Shashank Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- Ratnesh Chandra Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J. 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner herein wants direction for correction of the cost of the residential plot, which is to be settled in his favour based on his bid in an auction held on 25.9.2024. 3. Contention of the petitioner's counsel is that in relation to the bid of Rs. 1.55 crore and odd, 22% excess amount is being demanded from the petitioner vide Annexure-1, which is the demand-letter/property allotment letter dated 19.12.2024. 4. Learned counsel for the L.D.A. invites our attention to Clause 24 of the terms and conditions of auction, which reads as under: “vkoklh; Hkw[k.Mksa esa 12 izfr”kr Qzh&gksYM “kqYd] 10 izfr”kr ikdZ Qsflax ,oa 10 izfr”kr dkuZj “kqYd uhykeh mijkUr vkoaVu i= esa lEefyr dj vkWuykbZu ds ek/;e ls lwfpr fd;k tk;sxkA” 5. Further submission is that it was part of terms and conditions of auction that 12% freehold charges, 10% park-facing and 10% corner charges would be payable after auction and the allotment letter would mention the aforesaid charges, which is precisely what has been done by the impugned order. 6. He relies on Clause 24, quoted hereinabove, as also the document relied upon by the petitioner's counsel annexed as Annexure-9, which is in tune with Clause 24, although it is incorrectly mentioned as Clause 23. The allotment letter has been issued subsequent to the p. 1 auction, including the aforesaid amounts which are payable alongwith the highest bid. Vide Annexure-9 the petitioner has been informed that the aforesaid charges would be payable in view of Clause 24 and the said document is dated 13.1.2025, which has not been challenged before us, however, the petitioner says that these conditions, especially Clause 24, were never brought to his notice nor uploaded on the portal. 7. In view of the above, the writ petition is dipsposed of with liberty to the petitioner to raise his claim before the Lucknow Development Authority, which shall be considered by the competent authority and its decision shall be communicated to the petitioner within 30 days. (Om Prakash Shukla, J.) (Rajan Roy, J.) Order Date :- 17.3.2025 A.Nigam p. 2 Digitally signed by :- ANUJ NIGAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench