Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:53428-DB Court No. - 21 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 10742 of 2025 Petitioner :- Hritik Kumar Singhal Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Udayan Nandan Counsel for Respondent :- Aditya Bhushan Singhal,C.S.C. Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J. Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J. 1. The petitioner has assailed a communication dated 24.3.2025 by respondent no. 4, i.e. Manager (Property), Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority, Greater Noida, addressed to the petitioner, informing him of the decision of the Board at Item No. 23, taken in 83rd Board Meeting, regarding cancellation of allotment of Plot No. 39, Block "A", Sector-20, Area 4,000 sq. meters. The relevant part of the decision taken by the Board has been extracted in the impugned communication and which reveals that the ground for cancellation was that certain amounts deposited by the petitioner prior to allotment order cannot be considered as amounts paid under the allotment order. 2. The plot was allotted to the petitioner on 22.4.2022. The allotment order mentions the total cost of the plot as Rs. 6,96,00,000/- and that registration money of Rs. 69,60,000/- was in deposit and after adjustment of the said amount, the amount due on the date of allotment was Rs. 6,26,40,000/- to be deposited by the allottee by 21.6.2022. 3. It appears that the allotment was cancelled on 4.1.2023 on ground of default in depositing the balance premium amount. The petitioner represented against the cancellation order and submitted challans to evidence payment of the entire due amount before the prescribed date, i.e. 21.6.2022. The petitioner was communicated by respondent no. 4 vide letter dated 14.6.2023 that by order of Chief Executive Officer dated 8.6.2023, the allotment has been restored, but in case any incorrect fact was placed before the petitioner and is discovered subsequently, the allotment would automatically stand cancelled. Now, by the impugned communication, the petitioner, as noted above, has been informed about the cancellation of the allotment on the ground that certain amounts deposited by him prior to issuance of the allotment order, cannot enure to his benefit. 4. According to the petitioner, the said decision has been taken on account of the fact that a sum of Rs. 49,15,555/- deposited by the petitioner prior to issuance of the allotment order against some other plots, was also relied upon by the petitioner while submitting the challans along with the previous representation. Counsel for the petitioner submits that even if the said amount is excluded, the petitioner had deposited Rs. 6,34,51,100/- and the same was in excess of Rs. 8,11,100/-. Therefore, in any event, the allotment could not have been cancelled. He submits that the petitioner has already made a representation in this regard on 28.3.2025 annexing therewith a chart giving the details of the payments made after the allotment order and before the due date. He submits that the impugned order, insofar as it does not take into consideration the said aspect, is illegal and is liable to be quashed. 5. Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri A.B. Singhal, Sri Pranav Tanwar and Sri Abhay Pratap Singh, appearing for the respondent-Development Authority, submits that some of the deposits though made after the allotment order, do not relate to the plot in question. He tried to contend that the petitioner has obtained certain other plots in resale and against which, deposits were made. Therefore, according to him, the same cannot be taken into consideration. He further submits that the amounts were deposited in the wrong account. 6. As noted above, the only ground on which the allotment has been cancelled is that the amounts deposited prior to the date of allotment, cannot enure to the benefit of the petitioner. The argument which is being raised before this Court in opposition to the writ petition, has not been the ground to cancel the allotment, therefore, in our opinion, the entire aspect is required to be considered by the Authority in the light of the representation made by the petitioner. 7. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of with direction to the respondent-Authority to pass a speaking order on the representation dated 28.3.2025 and any additional representation as may be made by the petitioner in pursuance of the instant order within two weeks. It is further provided that until decision is taken, no third party right shall be created by the respondent-Authority over the plot in question. (Anish Kumar Gupta, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.) Order Date :- 11.4.2025 Jaideep/- Digitally signed by :- JAIDEEP BANERJEE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad