HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 25720 of 2007 Court No. - 29 HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J. HON'BLE ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J. 1. Heard Sri Chandra Bhan Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri J.N. Maurya, learned Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Sri M.N. Singh, learned counsel for the respondents no. 2 and 3. 2. The instant writ petition was preferred way back in the year 2007 interalia with following reliefs:- "1) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to execute the lease deed in favour of the petitioner. 2) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to re-fix the amount of installment payable against the allotment order. 3) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to pay interest for a period of 8 months on Rs. 150,000/- the amount of draft which has not been deposited by the respondents in Bank." 3. While entertaining the writ petition, an interim order was accorded in favour of the petitioner on 29.5.2007 with following effect:- "Sri Siddhartha Varma has filed appearance on behalf of respondents No. 2 and 3. He prays for and is allowed four weeks' time to obtain Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Amulya Ratna Srivastava, Anil Kumar Dubey, Chandra Bhan Dubey, D.S. Pandey Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., , G.P. Srivastava, M.N.Singh Varun Kumar .....Petitioner(s) State of U.P. and Others .....Respondent(s) instructions or file counter affidavit. List on 16th July, 2007. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents are liable to execute the sale deed with regard to Plot No. A-2/2-12 situate at Surajpur B-Greater Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar. He submits that lease deed has not been executed without any valid reason. In view of the above, it will be open for the respondents to execute the lease deed in favour of the petitioner, if there is no legal impediment. It is further directed that the plot in question shall not be transferred in favour of any other person." 4. The matter is pending since then. Learned counsel for the petitioner makes a statement at bar, that the requisite amount has already been deposited but till date the Authority has not executed the lease deed in favour of the petitioner. He submits that a direction be issued to the UPSIDC to take all remedial measures to ensure substantial justice and execute the lease deed well within time. 5. Sri M.N. Singh, learned counsel for the UPSIDC on the instructions states no doubt, as an interim order dated 29.5.2007 was operational, no third party interest has been created in the instant matter and as the petitioner has himself moved an application on 17.12.2022 and later on 25.7.2023, indicating his willingness to deposit the outstanding amount in case his allotment may be restored. 6. Considering the factual situation once we find that, on the strength of interim order, the Authority has abstained to alienate or create any third party interest qua the said allotment, and the petitioner had already made repeated representation indicating his willingness to clear the outstanding dues in case the plot in question is restored, it would be just and proper that the respondent authority shall proceed and decide the petitioner's application expeditiously, preferably within six weeks. In order to facilitate the parties, it is also expected that while taking a decision if it is found that any amount is payable by the petitioner, he is at liberty to deposit the same within a further period of six weeks' failing which the WRIC No. 25720 of 2007 2 allotment made could be cancelled but in case he deposits the entire amount in lieu of the demand notice issued by the Authority, the lease deed shall be executed thereafter. 8. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. September 9, 2025 Kirti WRIC No. 25720 of 2007 3 (Anish Kumar Gupta,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.) Digitally signed by :- SMT KIRTI MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad