Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:26811-DB Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 4234 of 2025 Petitioner :- Sunil Kumar Shukla Respondent :- Lko. Development Authority Lko. Thru. Vice Chairman Lko. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sarvesh Kumar Dubey,O.P. Tiwari,Pankaj Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- Ratnesh Chandra,C.S.C. Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J. 1. Heard Shri Sanjay Bhasin, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Sarvesh Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State and Shri Ratnesh Chandra, learned counsel for the LDA. 2. On 02.05.2025 we had passed following order:- "Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. Heard. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is without any notice, the impugned order cancelling the allotment of the plot in question which was made in favour of Sri M.B. Singh way back in 1995 who in turn sold it off to one Sri Arvind Raj Shekhar Tewari from whom the petitioner has purchased it on 16.12.2024, has been passed that too after complaint having been made by the petitioner himself that he is not being allowed to construct boundary wall by certain strangers. It is further submitted that based on the impunged order, the land is proposed to be auctioned by e- mode and also that F.I.R. is proposed to be filed any day. Let learned counsel for Lucknow Development Authority seek instructions as to whether any notice was given to the petitioner before passing the impugned order, if not, the reasons therefor. List this case on 07.05.2025 as fresh. Till the next date of listing, the impugned order shall remain in abeyance unless notice was served upon the petitioner prior to its passing containing the allegations against him, if any." 3. On being asked as to whether any notice was given to the petitioner prior to cancelling the allotment made in favour of the original allottee i.e. M.B. Singh way back in 1995, as, it is claimed by the petitioner that he has subsequently purchased the land from the subsequent purchaser, Shri Ratnesh Chandra, learned counsel for the LDA very fairly submitted that no notice was given to the petitioner, however, he also asserted that in fact no deed was executed in favour of Shri M.B. Singh by the LDA.Whether any allotment letter was given to Shri M.B. Singh or allotment was made, is also highly disputed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner says that impugned order does not say that no allotment was made. 5. Be that as it may, it would be better and in keeping with the principles of natural justice that notice be given to the petitioner along with material which may be the basis of issuance to the petitioner within a period of 10 days whereupon the petitioner shall respond to the same within a period of three weeks and thereafter, the competent authority of LDA shall a take a decision in the matter as per law, if necessary after affording personal hearing to the petitioner and getting the facts, if any, asserted by him in his response to the notice, verified and confronting the petitioner with the result of such decision. The impugned decision is accordingly quashed with liberty aforesaid. 6. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ petition is disposed of. . (Om Prakash Shukla,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) Order Date :- 7.5.2025 R.K.P. Digitally signed by :- RAJ KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench