Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:142305-DB Court No. - 29 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 15502 of 2025 Petitioner :- Atul Gupta Respondent :- State Of Up And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Hitesh Pachori Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Suresh C. Dwivedi,Vineet Pandey Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J. 1. Heard Mr. Hitesh Pachori, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mrs. Uttara Bahuguna, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents, Mr. Vineet Pandey, learned counsel for the Agra Development Authority (in short "A.D.A.") and perused the material brought on the record. 2. By means of the instant petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing of the advertisement published for re-allotment of plot No. E-565B [EWS], Block C-1, Shastripuram Yojna, Agra [Annexure No. 7 to this writ petition]. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding & directing the respondent No. 2, not to re-allot the plot No. E-565B [EWS], Block C-1, Shastripuram Yojna, Agra, in pursuance to the advertisement published inviting registration from 17.02.2025 to 18.03.2025. (iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding & directing the respondent No. 2, to decide the application dated 09.01.2024, for revival of plot, allotted to the petitioner on 31.05.2016. (iv) Issue a writ order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstance of the case. (v) Award the cost of the petition to the petitioner." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was allotted a plot i.e. Plot No. E-565B (EWS), Block C-1, Shastripuram, Yojna, Agra vide allotment letter dated 31.05.2016. He submits that Deputy In-charge (Property), A.D.A. had issued a letter dated 05.07.2023 by which the petitioner was asked to deposit a sum to the tune of Rs.3,22,737/- by 15.07.2023. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allotment of the plot in question accorded in favour of the petitioner was cancelled on account of the fact that petitioner could not ensure payment of the consideration amount of the plot in question well within the time as prescribed by the Development Authority. He submits that it is not in dispute that the petitioner belong to Economically Weaker Section and only on the basis of his E.W.S. status, he was accorded the plot in question. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his submissions, placed reliance upon Clause 46 of the Registration Prospectus issued by the Development Authority, annexed as Annexure 8 to the writ petition. He submits that the petitioner fulfills the eligibility criteria as laid down in the said Prospectus and falls within the relevant category as specified therein. However, despite fulfilling the requisite conditions, the allotment has not been restored to the petitioner till date. It is further submitted that the petitioner is inclined to clear the outstanding dues, as contemplated under Clause 46 of the Registration Prospectus. 4. Mr. Vineet Pandey, learned counsel for the A.D.A., submits that the petitioner has persistently defaulted, and despite repeated indulgences granted by the Development Authority, the requisite amount has not been deposited till date. This persistent non-compliance compelled the Authority to initiate auction proceedings in respect of the property in question. However, he very fairly conceded the fact that, insofar as the petitioner’s claim is concerned, particularly in light of Clause 46 of the Registration Prospectus, definitely, the same shall be duly considered by the Development Authority in accordance with law. 5. Considering the factual matrix as it emerges before us, it is evident that Clause 46 of the Registration Prospectus has been framed to provide reprieve to the defaulters with certain prerequisite formalities for restoration of the plot, by the Development Authority itself. In such view of the matter, in the event the petitioner submits an application invoking the proviso under Clause 46 of the Registration Prospectus, the petitioner’s claim shall be considered by the Vice Chairman, Development Authority, strictly in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. 6. It is provided that in the meantime, any auction of the disputed property would definitely be dependent upon the fresh decision of the Vice Chairman of the Development Authority. Order Date :- 20.8.2025 Sachin Digitally signed by :- SACHIN TIWARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- SACHIN TIWARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad