PREETI RASTOGI v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND 3 OTHERS
WRIC/33444/2025 · 2025-09-22
Anish Kumar Gupta, Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 99575 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 99575 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 33444 of 2025 Court No. - 29 HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J.
HON'BLE ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J.
1. Heard Sri Vibhu Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ambrish Shukla, learned counsel for the respondents no. 2 and 3 and Sri Akhileshwar Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents. 2. The instant writ petition has been filed seeking quashing of the lease deed dated 25.10.2024 executed by respondent-Authority in favour of respondent no. 4 in respect of plot no. C-70, Sector B-5 & 6, Trans Delhi Signature City, Loni Ghaziabad. It is further prayed that the respondents be directed not to act upon the lease deed dated 25.10.2024 and maintain status quo with respect to the plot in question. 3. It transpires from the record that earlier the original allottee-Shama Rastogi, who is the real sister of petitioner, had preferred a Writ C No. 28016 of 2024 wherein she had prayed for a direction commanding the respondent-Project Officer, Uttar Pradesh State Industrial Development Authority, Trans Delhi Signature City Scheme to forthwith and expeditiously complete all the necessary formalities and execute the lease deed of Plot No. C-70 (Sector B 5 & 6) in her favour within stipulated time. 4. In the said proceedings, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State on the instructions apprised the Court that the authority has no objection in case the petitioner applied through the Nivesh Mitra Portal; Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : S.B.Singh, Shashwat Pratap Singh, Vibhu Rai Counsel for Respondent(s) : Anuj Pratap Singh, C.S.C. Preeti Rastogi .....Petitioner(s) State Of Uttar Pradesh Through Principal Secretary And 3 Others .....Respondent(s)
the lease shall definitely be executed for Plot No. C-70 (Sector B 5 & 6), which was initially allotted in favour of the petitioner therein. 5. In this backdrop, an objection has been raised by Sri Ambrish Shukla, learned counsel for the UPSIDA on the ground that the UPSIDA would only acknowledge the allottee. He submits that it is an admitted case that Shama Rastogi is original allottee and she previously instituted the writ petition for a direction commanding respondents for execution of lease deed.
He submits that the dispute that has been raised by petitioner in the instant proceedings, who is a real sister of original allottee Shama Rastogi qua the allotted plot would have no bearing in the instant lis admittedly in response to the order dated 29.8.2024 passed in Writ C No. 28016 of 2024 the lease deed has also been executed in favour of Shama Rastogi. He submits that in case the petitioner is agitating per se the allotment is on the basis of deposits made by the petitioner, the appropriate remedy would be to approach the competent civil court for adjudication of the same. He further submits that the authority would definitely, not acknowledge anyone except the allottee. 6. Considering the objection so raised, we have proceeded to examine the records. It is not in dispute before us that Shama Rastogi had applied under the scheme floated by UPSIDA and consequently, she approached this Court in Writ C No. 28016 of 2024 for a direction to the respondents to execute the lease deed. Consequently, she approached the authority and later on the impugned lease deed has been executed in her favour. It is not in dispute that the instant petitioner is the real sister of the original allottee, who claims to the ownership of the said allotment owing to the fact that she had deposited the due amount of the lease but the same set of fact cannot be adjudicated at this stage by invoking powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and as such no case is made out for any interference by this Court. Needless to say it is always open to the petitioner to invoke the appropriate remedy in accordance with law. 7. The writ petition stands disposed of. September 23, 2025/Kirti WRIC No. 33444 of 2025 2 (Anish Kumar Gupta,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.) Digitally signed by :- SMT KIRTI MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad