Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:42048-DB Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 5843 of 2012 Petitioner :- Pankaj Rai Respondent :- Lucknow Development Authority Through V.C. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- B.K.Singh,Chandra Bhushan Pandey,Sheo Narain Rao Counsel for Respondent :- Gaurav Mehrotra,Anurag Srivastava,P.C.Mishra,Shailendra Singh Chauhan,Shobhit Mohan Shukla Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J. 1. Heard Mr. C.B. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Shobhit Mohan Shukla, learned counsel for opposite party no. 1, Mr. Anurag Srivastava, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and Mr. Raj Bahadur Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State. 2. By means of this petition the petitioner has challenged an order dated 10.07.2022 passed by the Vice Chairman, Lucknow Development Authority, Lucknow by which he has cancelled the allotment of a plot bearing no. CC-2, Sector K, Ashiyana Colony, Lucknow developed by opposite party no. 2 and has thereby declined to execute the sale-deed in favour of petitioner. 3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that an agreement was arrived at between the opposite parties no. 1 and 2 to develop a township wherein as per the agreement entered into except for primary health center other public utility plots would be allotted by opposite party no. 2. The plot in question was initially allotted to one S.C. Kushwaha in 2020. Subsequently, the said allotment was transferred in the name of the petitioner and one Prabhat Chandra Mishra. Prabhat Chandra Mishra subsequently died. The wife of Prabhat Chandra Mishra is said to have informed the opposite party no. 2 that the plot may be transferred in the name of the petitioner. The petitioner claims to have been allotted the said plot along with Prabhat Chandra Mishra vide order dated 27.02.2001 contained in Annexure No. 8. The impugned order refers to the allotment letter as being dated 18.01.2001, a copy of this document dated 18.01.2001 is annexed as CA-1 to the counter affidavit of opposite party no. 1. The counter affidavit of opposite party no. 2 refers to the allotment letter dated 15.01.2001, a copy of which is annexed as SA-2. Thus, there are three different allotment letters. 4. The case of the petitioner herein is that aforesaid plot having been allotted in favour of the petitioner and the opposite party no. 2 having endorsed the said fact and there being no legal impediment, the Lucknow Development Authority, which was obliged to execute a sale-deed in favour of the petitioner as per the agreement entered into between opposite parties no. 1 and 2, was not justified in not executing the sale-deed. This led to filing of a writ petition bearing No. 4056 (MB) of 2009 by the petitioner which was disposed of on 02.05.2012 in the following terms: "We have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the pleadings of writ petition. A civil suit is pending in the court of civil judge, Malihabad, Lucknow in respect of the subject matter impugned herein. The averments made herein may also be the part of pleadings of the civil suit. As the civil court in case of disputed facts is the appropriate court which decides the matter after appreciation of evidence to be led by parties, this writ petition on such facts would not be maintainable. However, looking to the fact that the impugned order has been passed rejecting the representation perhaps under the apprehension that if a favorable order is passed it may amount to violation of the order of status-quo granted by the civil court, we dispose of this writ petition with clarification that since Lucknow Development Authority-defendant no.3 and the Ansal Properties- defendant no.4 have been deleted from the array of parties in the civil suit, it would be appropriate for the Vice-Chairman, Lucknow Development Authority, to apply his mind afresh, independent of the aforesaid pending proceedings. Thus, this writ petition is disposed of with liberty to petitioner to make a fresh representation which shall be decided on merit within a period of four weeks from the date of receiving a copy of this order." 5. In the said writ petition, the earlier rejection of the claim of petitioner by the Vice Chairman, Lucknow Development Authority, Lucknow vide order dated 04.02.2009 was challenged. By the said order dated 04.02.2009, the claim of the petitioner was declined on the ground that he had filed a civil suit bearing No. 162 of 2008 arraying certain private parties and the Lucknow Development Authority wherein an order of status quo had been passed on 20.03.2008 on account of which it was not possible to take any action. Apart from it, other reasons were also given such as concealment by the petitioner of the aforesaid status quo order passed by the Civil Court in an earlier Writ Petition bearing No. 9359 (MB) of 2008. It was also stated the assertion of the petitioner, Mr. Pankaj Rai, that possession of plot CC-2, Sector K had been given to him on 10.01.2008 was contrary to the terms of agreement entered into between the opposite parties no. 1 and 2, Para 10.3 of which provided that the possession would be handed over only after registration of the sale- deed which in fact had not been executed what to say of being registered. Accordingly, the Vice Chairman, Lucknow Development Authority had rejected the representation of the petitioner vide order dated 04.02.2009. However, thereafter sometime in 2011 the petitioner deleted the Lucknow Development Authority from array of defendants in the aforesaid civil suit. This factor was taken into consideration by this Court while disposing of Writ Petition No. 4056 (MB) of 2009 on 02.05.2012 and directing the Vice Chairman, Lucknow Development Authority to take a decision in the matter independently. This has led to passing of the impugned order on 10.07.2012. We have perused the impugned order and we find that the Vice Chairman, Lucknow Development Authority has raised serious doubts as to the veracity of the allotment letter dated 18.01.2001 which in fact has not been annexed by the petitioner. 6. On being confronted, counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to Annexure-7 to the writ petition which is a receipt dated 18.01.2001 and not an allotment order. In fact, the petitioner's counsel relies on the allotment letter dated 27.02.2001 and, as already observed, the opposite party no. 2 refers to allotment letter dated 15.01.2001. Counsel for the Lucknow Development Authority, of course, has referred to an allotment letter dated 18.01.2001 contained as Annexure No. CA-1. The Vice Chairman, Lucknow Development Authority has recorded the following finding with regard to veracity of the allotment letter: " शश पपकज ररय कक ममससर असपल हरउससपग एणड करनसटटकशन सल० दररर ककयम गयम भभखणड आवपटन कम पकरण मम आकशयरनर रमजशडमनट वमलफम यर एसककशयमशन दररर यह तथय सपजरन मम लरयर गयर कक ममससर असपल हरउससपग एणड करनसटटकशन सल० दररर भभखणड कर आवपटन बबक डमकटपग करकम ककयर गयर हब, कययकक आवपटन पत मम सजस पबड कर पयकग ककयर गयर हब, उसमम 7 अपककय टमलशफकन नमबर ममकदत हब, जक कक कदसमबर, 2002 सम जनवरश, 2003 मम बश०एस०एन०एल० लरगभ ककयम गयम हब, जबकक आवपटन पत मम कतसथ 18.1.2001 अपककत कक गयश हब। इस तथय कक पमकष बश०एस०एन०एल करयररलय सम भश कररयश गयश। ततकरलशन सकचव, लखनऊ कवकरस परसधकरण कम पत सप०-208/बलकसमल/09 कदनरपक 14.5.2009 पर सहरयक महरपबनधक, (पचर०) कक आखयर कदनरपक 14.5.2009 मम 7 कडसजट कम टमलशफकन नप० कदसपबर, 2002 सम जनवरश, 2003 कम अनदर लरगभ ककयम जरनम कर तथय अपककत ककयर गयर हब। उक तथयय कम आधरर पर आवपटन पत कभ टरचनर करतम हहए बबकडमकटपग मम तबयरर कररयम जरनम कम तथय कक उदरत करतम हहए मर० उचच नयरयरलय मम कवशमष करयररसधकररश दररर शपथ पत मई, 2009 मम पसतमत ककयर जर चमकर हब। ममससर असपल हरउससपग एणड करनसटटकशन सल० कक भश आवपटन कक बबकडमकटपग कक ससथकत सपष करनम हमतम पत सप०-219/बलकसमल/सकचव/09 कदनरपक 19.5.2009 दररर सभकचत ककयर गयर, परनतम उनकम दररर ककई उतर नहह कदयर गयर हब। यदकप ममससर असपल हरउससपग एणड करनसटटकशन सल० दररर आवपटन पत कक बबकडमकटपग कम तथय पर ममन कक ससथत अपनरई गयश हब, परनतम इससम यह सपष हब कक इस तथय कर उनकम दररर खणडन नहह ककयर गयर हब।" He has opined, after due inquiry, that the letter pad on which the allotment letter alleged to have been made contains a seven digit landline number which was made available to the public only during the period December, 2002 to January, 2003 by BSNL whereas the allotment letter is of 2001. This fact was got verified from the office of BSNL which also corroborated the said fact vide its letter/report dated 14.05.2009. The opposite party no. 2 was confronted with the aforesaid scenario but did not respond. 7. We have perused the document contained as Annexure No. 7 to the writ petition which is a receipt dated 18.01.2001 which contains a landline number 3311250 which is a seven digit number and had not been made available in 2001 and nothing has been brought on record by the petitioner to prove to the contrary. The allotment letter dated 27.02.2001 relied by the petitioner also contains similar seven digit landline number provided by the BSNL which makes the said allotment letter also doubtful. Likewise is the case with the allotment letter which was considered by the Lucknow Development Authority, copy of which has been annexed as CA-1 and is dated 18.01.2001. Now, the petitioner claims a right of execution of sale-deed by the Lucknow Development Authority in his favour based on the said allotment letter which has been found to be backdated and not genuine by the Vice Chairman, Lucknow Development Authority. 8. In spite of being confronted, the counsel for the petitioner could not show any perversity, at least as of now, in the findings recorded by the Vice Chairman, Lucknow Development Authority. His argument was that the Vice Chairman, Lucknow Development Authority has no authority to cancel the allotment. In this context, the counsel for the Lucknow Development Authority submitted that while considering the request of the petitioner for execution of sale-deed the Vice Chairman, Lucknow Development Authority was well within his rights to verify the genuineness of the allotment made to the petitioner by opposite party no. 2 which he has found, for cogent reasons, to be not reliable at all. 9. We are of the opinion even otherwise assuming that the Vice Chairman, Lucknow Development Authority could not cancel the allotment when the petitioner and opposite party no. 2 are not able to satisfy us with regard to veracity of the alleged allotment letters referred hereinabove and apparently the genuineness of the said document is suspect, at least as of now before us, then, this plea that the Vice Chairman, Lucknow Development Authority has no authority to cancel the allotment pales into insignificance. In any case, the Vice Chairman, Lucknow Development Authority by passing the impugned order has declined to execute the sale-deed in favour of petitioner because he has found the allotment to be lacking in genuineness and antedated. 10. In the absence of any material before us to arrive at any different conclusion and, as, we cannot go into the disputed questions of facts, but, leaving it open for the petitioner to agitate this issue before any other Forum or Court, as the case may be, uninfluenced by the observations made hereinabove which are only for the purposes of this proceedings in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Vice Chairman, Lucknow Development Authority. 11. It is also open for the petitioner to satisfy the Vice Chairman, Lucknow Development Authority, even as of now, about the genuineness of the allotment letter/documents referred hereinabove and also as to how seven digit landline number issued by the BSNL is mentioned in the said document and also as to how he came into possession on 10.01.2008 without the sale- deed having been executed till now in view of Para 10.3 of the agreement entered into between opposite parties no. 1 and 2, uninfluenced by this order. 12. The writ petition is dismissed. [Manish Kumar, J.] [Rajan Roy, J.] Order Date :- 22.7.2025 Santosh/- Digitally signed by :- SANTOSH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench