1 Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:158245-DB Court No. - 29 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 28809 of 2025 Petitioner :- Yogendra Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajan Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- Nipun Singh,C.S.C. Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Devesh Vikram, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for State respondent and Shri Ambrish Shukla, learned counsel for U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad. 2. The instant writ petition has been filed praying inter-alia for the following relief: “(i) a writ, order or direction in the nature of CERTIORARI to quash the impugned cancellation order dated 15.7.2025 passed by respondent no.4. (ii) a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS to restrain the respondents authorities from creating any third party right through auction proceeding schedule to be held on 22.8.2025 in respect of Plot No. 1/836 situated at Ambedkarpuram Scheme-III, District Kanpur Nagar. (iii) a writ, nature order or direction in the of MANDAMUS 2 commanding and directing the respondents authorities to accept the due outstanding amount from the petitioner in respect of Plot No.1/836 situated at Ambedkarpuram Scheme-III, District Kanpur Nagar.” 3. The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the cancellation of allotment of the aforesaid Plot No. 1/836, measuring 203.40 sq. meters, situated at Ambedkarpuram Scheme-III, Kanpur Nagar. The said plot was allotted to him by allotment letter dated 20.11.2021 issued by the U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad after the petitioner had emerged as the highest bidder in an e-auction. The petitioner contends that after the allotment, he had been depositing installments from time to time, but due to unforeseen financial difficulties arising out of the COVID-19 pandemic and the serious illness of his father, he defaulted in making certain payments. Consequently, the allotment was cancelled vide order dated 19.04.2025 by the respondent No.4 - Property Manager, U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad. Against the said cancellation, the petitioner moved a restoration application on 19.05.2025 offering to clear outstanding dues, which remained pending. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Writ-C No. 19643 of 2025 (Yogendra Kumar vs. State of U.P. and others) before this Court, which was disposed of on 13.06.2025 with a direction to respondent no.4 to decide his pending application within a stipulated period and, in the meantime, not to create any third-party rights. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner submitted a detailed representation dated 15.07.2025, but vide impugned order of the same date, his request was rejected on the ground of persistent default and non-payment of mandatory charges. The petitioner asserts that the impugned order is arbitrary, unjust, and in violation of Rule 41(7) of the Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Niyamavali, 2016 (in 3 short ‘Niyamavali, 2016’) as his earlier deposits towards restoration and installments were not duly adjusted. He further fears that in pursuance of the rejection order, the respondents may proceed with auction on 22.08.2025, thereby creating third-party rights and depriving him of the plot for which he has already deposited substantial sums. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned cancellation order dated 15.07.2025 is illegal, arbitrary, and unsustainable in law. It is contended that the petitioner, being the valid allottee of the plot since 20.11.2021, had deposited several installments towards the cost, and his inability to pay certain dues was solely due to unavoidable circumstances like COVID-19 hardships and medical expenses of his father. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner had already deposited restoration charges to the tune of Rs.1,51,000/-, which, as per Rule 41(7) of the Niyamavali, 2017 ought to have been duly adjusted while considering his application for restoration. The rejection order has been passed without taking these facts into consideration and the same is cryptic and mechanical. It is urged that the petitioner is still ready and willing to deposit the outstanding balance in easy installments, and therefore, the respondents cannot deprive him of his vested rights in the allotted plot. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad submits that the petitioner has been a consistent defaulter since the very beginning. It is pointed out that the petitioner was first allotted the same plot in 2018, but despite repeated notices, he failed to deposit installments, leading to cancellation on 05.02.2020. Even after paying partial restoration charges on 04.03.2020, he did not make requisite payments, and thus, the plot was re-auctioned. In the subsequent e- auction of 28.10.2021, the petitioner again emerged as highest bidder, and allotment letter dated 20.11.2021 was issued, subject to mandatory 4 conditions requiring deposit of Rs.76,53,493/- and other charges by 31.12.2021. However, despite repeated notices dated 19.09.2022, 20.03.2023, and 21.02.2025, the petitioner failed to comply, resulting in cancellation on 19.04.2025. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner, in his representation dated 19.05.2025, attempted to adjust earlier deposits of restoration charges against the fresh allotment, though no provision exists under the Niyamawali, 2016 permitting such adjustment. Moreover, even the revised restoration fee of Rs.3,00,707/- was not fully deposited, as only Rs.34,000/- was paid belatedly. Hence, the rejection order dated 15.07.2025 is justified, as allowing such chronic default would seriously compromise the integrity of the allotment process and public interest in fair allocation of valuable public land. 6. Having considered the rival submissions and examined the record, this Court finds no merit in the writ petition. It is undisputed that the petitioner was allotted Plot No. 1/836 on two occasions, first in 2018 and then again in 2021, yet on both occasions he defaulted in making timely and complete payments despite issuance of repeated notices. The petitioner’s plea of financial hardship on account of COVID-19 or medical expenses, though sympathetic, cannot override the mandatory conditions of allotment. The contractual framework governing the allotment process clearly provides that installments and other dues must be deposited within the prescribed time. The petitioner never sought any formal extension of time from the competent authority within the four corners of the governing Niyamawli, and unilateral deposits made belatedly cannot bind the authority. 7. The Apex Court in Skyline Contractors Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. (2008) 8 SCC 265, has categorically held that delayed or partial payments, without prior approval, do not create any enforceable right in 5 favour of the allottee, and the authority is justified in cancelling the allotment. The present case is squarely covered by the said principle, as the petitioner’s restoration request, based on earlier deposits, could not be legally sustained when the allotment itself had been cancelled for non-compliance with essential conditions. 8. Further, in Kamla Nehru Memorial Trust v. U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 31887- 88/2017, the Supreme Court emphasized that repeated and deliberate defaults in payment of dues undermine the entire framework of allotment and allocation of public land. The Court upheld cancellation in that case, stressing that public resources cannot be indefinitely blocked by chronic defaulters under the guise of restoration or waiver of dues. The present petitioner’s conduct reflects a similar pattern of prolonged default, attempts to adjust unrelated deposits, and repeated litigation, which cannot be permitted to erode the sanctity of the allotment process. 9. It is also pertinent to observe that the petitioner’s reliance on Rule 41(7) of the Niyamavali, 2016 is misplaced. The said provision does not authorize automatic adjustment of earlier restoration charges against subsequent allotments, as clarified in the impugned order. The respondents rightly noted that the petitioner had not even deposited the full restoration fee or the outstanding dues, which as on 31.05.2025 amounted to more than Rs.2 crores. Such arrears cannot be condoned merely on the basis of the petitioner’s readiness to pay in future, since contractual obligations must be honored within the stipulated time to maintain transparency and fairness in public dealings. 10. In light of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 15.07.2025 does not suffer from any 6 illegality, arbitrariness, or infirmity. The petitioner, having failed to comply with the essential terms of allotment, cannot claim equity in his favour. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as devoid of merit. However, in the interest of justice, we observe that in case the petitioner files an application for refund of the deposits, the said application would be processed in accordance with law. Order Date :- 09.09.2025 NLY (Anish Kumar Gupta,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.) Digitally signed by :- NAND LAL YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad