HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 30322 of 2025 Court No. - 29 HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J. HON'BLE ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Uttara Bahuguna, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Shri Ambrish Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent - U.P. State Industrial Development Authority (UPSIDA). 2. This writ petition has been filed praying inter alia for the following relief: "A. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to replace/substitute the Plot No. C-488 of Saraswati Hitech City Naini Prayagraj with another plot in the same campus and provide the amenities as permissible under the scheme. B. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents authorities to consider the representation of petitioner." 3. At the very outset, Shri Ambrish Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent – UPSIDA, has raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition in view of the order dated 01.08.2025 passed by the Division Bench in Writ - C No. 21442 of 2025 (Shyam Kumar vs. State of U.P. and 2 Others). He fairly submits that even the Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Manvendra Narain Pathak, Shiv Lal Counsel for Respondent(s) : Ambrish Shukla, Anuj Pratap Singh, C.S.C., Pankaj Rai Shyam Kumar .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) petitioner was duly communicated vide letter dated 23.06.2025 wherein it was observed by the authority that the allottees of Plot Nos. C-488 (disputed plot in the instant matter) and C-469 had been informed that there exists an access road up to Plot Nos. C-488 and C-469, and proceedings for handing over possession of certain nearby plots had already been undertaken. The allottees were further advised to execute the lease deeds of Plot Nos. C-488 and C-469 and take possession thereof. It was also stated that in case of any difficulty, the same would be resolved by the Authority. 4. Considering the factual position, and in view of the petitioner’s willingness to deposit the entire outstanding amount within 15 days in the light of the observations made by the Division Bench in the previous round of litigation, this Court is of the opinion that in case the petitioner faces any inconvenience in relation to execution of the lease deed or taking possession, the same shall be duly redressed by the competent authority in accordance with law. 5. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of. September 24, 2025 NLY WRIC No. 30322 of 2025 2 (Anish Kumar Gupta,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.) Digitally signed by :- NAND LAL YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad