HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 31112 of 2025 Court No. - 29 HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J. HON'BLE ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J. 1. Heard Shri Krishnam Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Ambrish Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State- respondents and Shri Vibhu Rai, learned counsel for respondent no.2 - Prayagraj Development Authority (PDA). 2. In view of the order proposed to be passed, notices need not go to private respondents Nos.6 and 7. 3. The instant writ petition has been filed praying inter alia for the following relief: "a) issue, a writ, order or direction, in the nature of Mandamus, directing the Respondent No 5 to Comply with their order dated 02.05.2025 in time bound manner preferably withing 1 months. b) To direct the respondent authorities to demolish unauthorized occupancy of respondent no. 6 & 7 over the allotted plot of petitioners." 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was allotted a 50 sq. mts. flat/plot No. G-42 under the Shantipuram Housing/Phaphamau Scheme by the Allahabad Development Authority now Prayagraj Development (PDA), and an allotment letter-cum-payment schedule was issued on 22.03.2002. Subsequently, the PDA executed a registered sale deed of freehold land, Gata No. 470, Mauja Phaphamau, as Plot No. G-42, Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Aman Tiwari, Krishnam Pandey, Shivam Pandey Counsel for Respondent(s) : Avadhesh Narayan Dubey, C.S.C., Vibhu Rai Mahesh Chandra Sahu And Another .....Petitioner(s) State Of Uttar Pradesh And 6 Others .....Respondent(s) Phase-I, on 11.08.2015 in favour of the petitioner after payment of Rs. 84,000/-. He submits that when the petitioner went to take possession of his allotted plot, he found it illegally occupied by respondent nos. 6 and 7, who refused to vacate even after being shown the registered sale deed. He submits that application of the respondent Nos.6 and 7 for compounding of map was rejected by the Zonal Officer on 18.05.2017, and an order of demolition was passed on 10.07.2017, followed by rejection of their appeal under Section 27(2) of the Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 by the Commissioner on 23.05.2018. Respondent nos. 6 and 7 also filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 20220 of 2018, which was dismissed for non- prosecution on 07.03.2025, and an FIR was lodged against them under Sections 419 and 420 IPC. The PDA issued several letters requesting adequate force to remove the encroachment, and even fixed 25.03.2021 for eviction, but due to lack of enforcement, possession was never delivered to the petitioner. Lastly, it is submitted that as there is no impediment, the PDA must ensure compliance of its own orders and hand over possession of the plot in question to the petitioners, who are suffering irreparable loss and injury on account of such encroachment. 5. The factum of controversy has duly been acknowledged by the learned counsel for the respondents, as it is not in dispute that the petitioners are rightful allottees under the scheme in question. It is also undisputed that they have already deposited the requisite amount towards the allotment. Since the PDA had already initiated proceedings to remove the illegal encroachment over the allotted land, and the matter stood settled by the appellate authority, nothing has been brought on record to show that the said orders have been challenged. 6. Considering the factual situation, the writ petition is disposed of finally with a direction that the PDA shall comply with its own orders, in accordance with law, within three weeks from the date of production of an application along with a certified copy of this order, if there is no other legal impediment. September 16, 2025 NLY WRIC No. 31112 of 2025 2 (Anish Kumar Gupta,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.) Digitally signed by :- NAND LAL YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad