HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 11562 of 2025 Court No. - 2 HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J. HON'BLE SYED QAMAR HASAN RIZVI, J. 1. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing counsel who appears on behalf of the State- respondent no.1 and Shri Ajaay Kumar Singh, Advocate, who has filed his Power on behalf of the Respondent nos.2 and 3. 2. In view of the order proposed to be passed, issuance of notice to the Opposite party no.4 is dispensed with. 3. This petition has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayers:- "i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing and commanding to the opposite party no.2 to execute the sale deed in favour of the petitioners. & ii) Any other suitable order or direction may be passed as this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the circumstances of the case." 4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that he had earlier filed a writ petition namely Writ Petition No.25830 (M/B) of 2021 [Deepak Mishra Vs. State of U.P. and others], with the prayer for execution of Sale Deed in favour of the Petitioner no.2 (Deepak Mishra) which was dismissed as withdrawn on 02.11.2021 with liberty to file a fresh petition. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Pradeep Singh Somvanshi, Santosh Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Ratnesh Chandra Lal Chandra Mishra And Another .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Housing And Urban Planning Development Lko. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) 5. On merits of the case, it has been submitted that the LDA had allotted a plot on 03.03.1992 in favour of the Opposite party no.4 Smt. Maishi Yadav wife of Late Rajendra Prasad Yadav. She was not paid any installment fixed by the LDA. That is why the Respondent no.4 gave a registered Power of Attorney to the Petitioner no.1 on 08.08.1995. Thereafter, Petitioner no.1 (Lal Chandra Mishra) had deposited all dues of the said plot from his own pocket. The Respondent no.4 has not paid a single penny. She has also taken some excess money from the petitioners for execution of Sale Deed in favour of the wife of the Petitioner no.1. 6. Since the allotment has been made by the LDA, the registration of Sale Deed has to be made by the LDA. LDA is not taking necessary steps for registration of Sale Deed in favour of the petitioners, therefore, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing this petition. 7. Shri Ajaay Kumar Singh, has raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the petition. He says that contract if any which was arrived at between the Petitioner No.1 and the Respondent no.4, does not bind the LDA. The LDA was not privity to the contract. It has also been stated that in case the petitioner has made any payment on the basis of some private agreement between the Petitioner no.1 and the Respondent no.4, the remedy available to him is to file a Suit for Specific Performance of Contract against the Respondent no.4. 8. From a perusal of the pleadings on record, this Court finds that the petitioners have failed to show any legal right subsisting or otherwise, on the basis of which a Mandamus can be issued to the LDA to execute the Sale Deed in their favour. 9. The writ petition stands dismissed. November 27, 2025 N.PAL WRIC No. 11562 of 2025 2 (Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.) (Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.) Digitally signed by :- NARESH PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- NARESH PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench