Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:48699-DB Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 7892 of 2025 Petitioner :- Ravindra Kumar Jain Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Nagar Vikas Vibhag Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ved Prakash Sharma,Lav Upadhyay Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ratnesh Chandra Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J. Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State Respondents and Sri Pratyush Chaube, Advocate, who has filed power on behalf of the Lucknow Development Authority. 2. This petition has been filed with the following main prayer:- "to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing the opposite parties no.2 and 3 to return money Rs.1,72,660.00 along with interest @ 18% per annum since 2003, which was deposited by the petitioner under Voluntary Enrichment Scheme, 1998 issued by the respondent no.2". 3. We have gone through the representation dated 20.01.2025 made by the petitioner to the Principal Secretary (Awas), Govt. of U.P., Lucknow, a copy of which has been filed as annexure-1 to the petition. A copy of such representation has also been sent to the Vice Chairman, Lucknow Development Authority, as is evident from the copy of the Speed Post receipt filed along with the said annexure. 4. It seems that the petitioner had deposited some money along with the application under the Voluntary Enrichment Scheme, 1998, with regard to compounding of commercial construction made by him on a residential plot. The said house has been sold of by the petitioner in the meantime as his compounding application was not considered. The petitioner has prayed for refund of the compounding fee of Rs.1,72,660/- which he had deposited in the year 2003. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the L.D.A. does not dispute that the amount was deposited by the petitioner in the year 2003 for compounding of his commercial construction on residential plot. 6. However, it is not clear from the pleadings on record and also from the arguments raised by the counsel for the parties as to whether such compounding application was allowed or rejected. In case the compounding application was rejected, then the amount that has been been deposited by the petitioner needs to be returned to him. 7. Let an appropriate reasoned and speaking order be passed by the Vice-Chairman, Lucknow Development Authority, on the application made by the petitioner on 20.01.2025, which has been endorsed to him. The decision shall be taken within a period of eight weeks from today. 8. With the aforesaid directions, writ petition stands disposed of. Order Date :- 20.8.2025 Rahul Digitally signed by :- RAHUL TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench