# Rakesh Kumar Shukla v. L.D.A. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 12 ILRA 602
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-12-09
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 4177 of 2024
- **Bench:** Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra, Brij Raj Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rakesh-kumar-shukla-v-l-d-a-ors-52955
- **Pages:** 33

## Text

_Characters 0–39,908 of 111,795. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39908 for what follows._

602 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

24. Accordingly, all the Writ Petitions
are allowed. A Writ of Certiorari is issued
quashing
the
impugned
Office
Memorandum dated 15.01.2025 rejecting
the petitioners claim for reimbursement of
the amount of fee of the students. A Writ of
Mandamus is issued commanding the
opposite parties to pay to the petitioners the
amount of fee of the students to whom they
have imparted education under the Uttar
Pradesh Anushuchit / Anusuchit Janjati /
Samanya Varg / Alpsankhyak / Pichhdi Jati
Dashmottar Chhatravritti Yojna, 2012 for
the academic sessions 2013-14, 2014-15
and 2016-17, as per the details already
uploaded by them on the official portal,
alongwith interest for the period of delay
since the amounts had become payable till
those are actually paid, on the maximum
rates prevailing in nationalized bank for
payment of interest on fixed deposits.

25. The parties shall bear their own
costs of litigation.
----------
(2025) 12 ILRA 602
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 09.12.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J.
THE HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J.

Writ C No. 4177 of 2024

Rakesh Kumar Shukla ...Petitioner
Versus
L.D.A. & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to challenge to the order dated
30.04.2024 passed by the Chairman, Lucknow
Development Authority, relating to Plot No.
1/205, Vineet Khand, Gomti Nagar, and prayer
for issuance of a writ of mandamus restraining
the respondents from allotting the said plot to
any other person, on the basis of alleged
housing pattas granted by the Gram Sabha in
the years 1973 and 1981, and dispute as to
whether the petitioner's house is situated on
Khasra No. 55 (acquired land) or Khasra No. 88
(non-acquired land).(Paras 1, 8, 19, 24)

Headnotes
Land Allotment - Gram Sabha Land -
Housing Patta - Validity - Allotment under
S. 122-C of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition
and Land Reforms Act, 1950 can be made
only in favour of eligible categories in
accordance with the prescribed order of
preference and only after prior approval of
the
Assistant
Collector,
which
is
mandatory.(Paras 70, 75, 76)
Writ
Jurisdiction
-
Article
226
-
Suppression of Material Facts - Clean
Hands
-
A
litigant
invoking
the
extraordinary
and
discretionary
jurisdiction of the High Court must make
full and true disclosure of all material
facts; suppression or concealment of
earlier litigations relating to the same
subject-matter amounts to fraud on the
Court and disentitles such litigant to
relief.(Paras 11, 13, 29)
Statutory
Requirement
-
Mandatory
Approval - Requirement of prior approval
of the Assistant Collector for allotment of
Gram Sabha land, introduced by statutory
amendment, is mandatory and cannot be
dispensed with, and any allotment made
in violation thereof is invalid. (Paras 20,
24, 71)
Evidence - Survey - Electronic Total
Station (ETS) - Scientific survey conducted
using
Electronic
Total
Station
(ETS)
method constitutes reliable evidence for
determination of location and boundaries
of land. (Paras 24, 25)
Held: The petitioner's claim based on alleged
housing
pattas
of
1973
and 1981
was
unsustainable, as the allottee did not fall within
the eligible categories under S. 122-C, and the
pattas were issued without mandatory prior
approval of the Assistant Collector, rendering
them invalid - Joint survey conducted by the
revenue authorities and officials of the Lucknow
Development Authority using Electronic Total
Station (ETS) established that the petitioner's
house is situated on Khasra No. 55, which had
12 All. Rakesh Kumar Shukla Vs. L.D.A. & Ors.
603
already been acquired after payment of
compensation, and not on Khasra No. 88 as
claimed
-
The
petitioner
was
guilty
of
concealment and misrepresentation by failing to
disclose earlier proceedings, including Regular
Suit No. 233 of 1995 and Writ Petition No. 1701
(M/B) of 1998, relating to the same dispute - A
litigant who obtains interim protection by
suppression of material facts is not entitled to
any discretionary relief under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India - The action of the
Lucknow Development Authority in directing
removal of unauthorised encroachment and
handing over possession of the plot to the
lawful allottee was justified -Writ Petition
dismissed. (Paras 11-29,72, 80-90) (E-7)

Case Law Cited
Amar Singh v. Ranpal Singh and Others, 2021
(8) ADJ 418; S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu(Dead)
by LRs Vs. Jagannath (Dead) by LRs and
Others, (1994) 1 SCC 1; K.D. Sharma v. Steel
Authority of India Ltd. and others: (2008) 12
SCC 481; Dalip Singh versus State of Uttar
Pradesh and others, (2010) 2 SCC 114; Moti
Lal Songara versus Prem Prakash Alias Pappu
and another (2013) 9 SCC 199; State of
Orissa versus Laxmi Narayan Das (Dead)
Through LRs & Others, (2023) 15 SCC 273;
Dina Nath v. State of U.P. & Ors. (2010) 15
SCC 218; Taylor v. Taylor (1875) 1 Ch D
426; Nazir Ahmed v. Emperor AIR 1936 PC
253(2); Shiv Bahadur Singh v. State of U.P.,
AIR 1954 SC 322; Deep Chand v. State of
Rajasthan, AIR 1961 SC 1527.

List of Acts
Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land
Reforms Act, 1950; U.P. Zamindari Abolition and
Land Reforms Rules, 1952; Land Acquisition Act,
1894; U.P. Land Laws (Amendment) Act, 1971;
Right to Information Act, 2005; U.P. Panchayat
Raj (Maintenance of Family Registers) Rules,
1970.

List of Keywords
housing Patta; misrepresentation; concealment;
Fraud; unauthorized possession; Electronic Total
Station Survey; Gram Sabha land; acquired
land; Prior approval

Case Arising From
ORIGINAL
JURISDICTION:
Order
dated
30.04.2024 passed by the Chairman, Lucknow
Development Authority, on the representation of
Vimal Chand Keshari, relating to Plot No. 1/205,
Vineet Khand, Gomti Nagar.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant (Petitioner):
Sri Anshuman Singh
Advs. for the Respondents:
Sri Ratnesh Chandra (for Lucknow Development
Authority)
Sri Sharad Pathak (for private respondent)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta
Chandra, J.)

This judgment has been divided into
the following Sections to facilitate analysis:

A.
The Challenge

Para 1

B.

Rival Submissions

Para 2 to 31

C.
Examination of pleadings
by the Court

Para 32 to 68

D.
Statutory Provisions

Para 69 to 74

E.
Governing Principles

Para 75

F.
Analysis
of
Petitioner's
Claim

Para 76 - 78

G.
Case laws on the Subject

Para 79

H.
Fraud
through
Misrepresentation
and
Concealment

Para 80 - 85

I.
Conclusion
Para 86- 90

A- The Challenge

1. Petitioner has prayed for quashing
of order dated 30.04.2024 passed by the
Chairman
Lucknow
Development
Authority (hereinafter referred as L.D.A.)
in relation to plot no. 1/205, and has also
prays for a writ in the nature of mandamus,
commanding the respondent not to allot
604 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
plot no. 1/205, Vineet Khand belonging to
the petitioner to anyone else.

B- Rival Submissions

2. The case of the petitioner as has
been put by Sri Anshuman Singh, learned
counsel for the petitioner is that his father
Kaushal Kishore Shukla had earlier filed
Writ Petition No.8426 (M/B) of 2009 in
relation to House No.A-1/205, Vineet
Khand,
Gomti
Nagar,
Lucknow
challenging the order dated 12.08.2009
passed by the Lucknow Development
Authority. The said writ petition was
dismissed for want of prosecution on
07.03.2024. The petitioner has filed a recall
application
on
11.03.2024,
which
is
pending for consideration, in which counsel
for private respondent got an adjournment
on 26.04.2024. It is also stated that Writ
Petition No.1970 (M/B) of 2001 was filed
by the father of private respondent, Sri
V.D.
Keshari
against
the
Lucknow
Development Authority and this writ
petition was clubbed with Writ Petition
No.8426 (M/B) of 2009 and was decided
by this Court vide order dated 07.03.2024
directing
the
Lucknow
Development
Authority to consider the representation of
Vimal Chand Keshari, who had been
substituted on account of death of his father
V. D. Keshari, who died in the meantime.

3. It is also the case of the petitioner
that his father Kaushal Kishore Shukla was
an ex-Army person and one plot of land in
Gram
Sabha,
Khargapur
Husariya
admeasuring 8 Biswas was given to him by
the Gram Pradhan by executing 2 pattas on
21.12.1973 and 02.09.1981 respectively.
The plot in question i.e. 1/205, Vineet
Khand, Gomti Nagar has been developed
after the Lucknow Development Authority
(hereinafter referred as L.D.A.) has taken
over the Gram Sabha land of Village
Khargapur Husariya. It has been stated that
petitioner's father Late Kaushal Kishore
Shukla constructed a house for his family,
which was numbered as House No.54 of
Village Husariya and the name of the
family members of Late Kaushal Kishore
Shukla were shown in Pariwar Register of
Gram Sabha, Khargapur Husariya. The
Gram Sabha had passed a resolution in
favour of Late Kaushal Kishore Shukla as
he, being a Havaldar in Indian Army, had
fought in the Indo-Pakistan War in the year
1971 and had been awarded a Special
Service Medal with clasp while serving in
Indian Peace Keeping Force in Sri Lanka.
It has been stated in the writ petition that
the house constructed by the father of the
petitioner was assessed by the Nagar
Mahapalika in the year 1992 and the Nagar
Nigam gave it as House No. 1/205, Vineet
Khand, Gomti Nagar. The Nagar Nigam is
collecting the house tax from the father of
the petitioner since 2002.

4. It is stated in the writ petition that
under Section 198(4) of the U.P.Z.A.L.R.
Act only the Collector is empowered to
cancel a patta if any irregularities is found
therein and such patta can only be
cancelled after issuing a show cause notice
and the limitation for cancellation of such
patta is five years. However, no such show
cause notice was ever issued by the
Collector to the father of the petitioner
since the inception of the two pattas dated
21.12.1973 and 02.09.1981. It has further
been stated that the requirement of
approval of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate
was added only in the year 1975 and before
1975, the prior approval for grant of patta
by Gram Sabha was not required. The
Lucknow Development Authority has got
no statutory authority to cancel or ignore
the pattas granted by the Gram Sabha in
12 All. Rakesh Kumar Shukla Vs. L.D.A. & Ors.
605
violation of Sections 198(4), (5) and (6) of
the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. It has also been
stated that although the petitioner has been
threatened to be thrown out from his plot,
other similarly situated nine persons/patta
holders were adjusted by providing them
housing sites over their patta land.

5. It has also been stated that the
petitioner and his family have been in
continuous possession over Plot No.1/205,
Vineet Khand, Gomti Nagar for the past 51
years as his father had constructed the
house over the said plot of land of Khasra
No.88 of Village Khargapur Husariya.
Further submission has been made that
V.D. Keshari, father of private respondent,
had applied for a Lower Income Group
house in Tikait Rai Housing Scheme of
Lucknow Development Authority, but
surprisingly his allotment was shifted to
Gomti Nagar Scheme against the Rules and
he was given 5,810 Sq. Ft. of land in the
posh area of Gomti Nagar and besides this,
his wife Smt. Kamla Keshari was also
allotted Plot No.A-3/272, Vishwas Khand,
Gomti Nagar, Lucknow. It is stated that
both the spouses could not have been
allotted a house or plot in the same city by
the Lucknow Development Authority as it
is against the Rules.

6. It has also been stated that on query
being made by the father of the petitioner
from the Lucknow Development Authority
with regard to illegal allotment to the father
of private respondent, it has been informed
that application of V.D. Keshari is undated
and was accepted sometimes in 1988,
whereas allotment of developed plots in
Vineet Khand itself had been started only
in the year 1989. It has been submitted that
it is not clear as to how in the year 1988
one A Type plot of 5810 Sq. Ft. was
allotted to V.D. Keshari.

7. It has also been stated that a
Resolution was passed by the Lucknow
Development Authority in its Board
meeting held on 27.11.1998 that patta
holders of earlier Gram Sabha land would
be adjusted against their plots after taking
Development charges. This resolution was
never acted upon in relation to the
petitioner, but other patta holders were
adjusted.

8. It has also been stated in the writ
petition that the order impugned states that
House No. A-1/205, Vineet Khand, Gomti
Nagar is not situated over Khasra No.88,
but it is situated over Khasra No.55,
whereas no survey was done to find out on
which Khasra Plot Number House No. A1/205 Vineet Khand, Gomti Nagar is
situated. The Public Information Officer's
comments and the report of the Lucknow
Development Authority submitted before
the Grievance Redressal Committee of
Vidhan Sabha has been filed as Annexure21 to the writ petition.

9. Initially, when the writ petition was
filed, counsel for the petitioner and the
counsel for the Lucknow Development
Authority were heard and notices were
issued to private respondent and the Court
had observed that till the next date of
listing the petitioner shall not be evicted
from the house and no demolition of the
house shall be carried out. The petitioner
was also restrained from raising any new
constructions or creating any third party
rights on the plot in dispute.

10. Later on, an application for recall
of such order was filed by the counsel for
private
respondent,
namely,
C.M.
Application No.2 of 2024, wherein it was
stated that in pursuance of allotment made
by the Lucknow Development Authority to
606 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the father of OP. no. 4, the entire sale
consideration was deposited in the year
1999. The Court after going through the
affidavit filed in support of the Application
for Recall, modified its order dated
07.05.2024 to the extent that house of the
father of petitioner, which was said to be
constructed only upon 645 Sq. Ft. of land
and
the
appurtenant
land
thereto
admeasuring only 2 Biswa as alleged to
have been granted by way of patta in 1973
by the Gram Sabha concerned, should not
be disturbed. The rest of the land, which is
in dispute, was directed to be demarcated
and handed over to the allottee, who had
already paid the entire sale consideration to
the Lucknow Development Authority. The
Court also directed the listing of the writ
petition along with the records of Writ
Petition No.8426 (M/B) of 2009, Kaushal
Kishore Shukla Vs. Lucknow Development
Authority and others, and Writ Petition
No.1970 (M/B) of 2001, V.D. Keshari Vs.
Lucknow Development Authority and
others, and Writ Petititon No. 1701 (M/B)
of 1998, Kaushal Kishore Shukla Vs.
Lucknow Development Authority and
others, decided on 11.06.1998.

11. In the application for Recall of
interim order dated 07.05.2024 filed by
private respondent, Vimal Chand Keshari,
it was stated that the entire writ petition had
misleading averments and the interim order
dated 07.05.2024 had been obtained on the
basis
of
misrepresentation
and
concealment. Though, the lease in favour
of the petitioner's father is said to have
been made initially on 15.12.1973 by a
Resolution passed by the Gaon Sabha
actual allotment in Prescribed Form 5 had
not been filed along with the petition. Also,
Kaushal Kishore Shukla had retired in
1990. Having been in active service as
havaldar/clerk in the Indian Army, he could
not be said to be belonging to reserved
category or landless or living Below
Poverty Line. Also, allotment of housing
site could not have been made to him a
second time in 1981 as alleged in the
petition. The L.D.A. had acquired the land
somewhere in the year 1980, and the land
vested initially in the State Government
and thereafter in the L.D.A. It allotted plot
no. 1/205, Vineet Khand in favour of the
father of the private respondent.

12. It was also stated that it seems that
after such acquisition of land in Vineet
Khand, late Kaushal Kishore Shukla had
got prepared documents in 1981, and he
claimed Two Pattas, to have been given to
him, one of which was of 2 Biswa and the
other of 6 Biswa. Currently, the petitioner
was in possession of almost 7000 ft2 of
land. However Resolution which the
petitioner is alleging to have been passed
by the Gram Sabha in 1973 was only for 2
Biswa of land which comes to around 2600
ft2. Kaushal Kishore Shukla has encroached
on much more land than was allegedly
allotted in his favour. The Gaon Sabha
Husariya has also not been impleaded as
respondent in the petition otherwise facts
regarding alleged allotment of Housing
Patta in favour of the petitioner's father
would have been verified. Such land on
which the petitioner's house is built is
situated on the main road in front of
Jaipuria school and the construction of the
petitioner is only 645.50 ft2 The father of
private respondent was a retired judicial
officer who was allotted 540 m2 of land
Plot No. 1/205 which comes to around
5810ft.2

13. It was stated by the private
respondent that while filing the petition, the
petitioner has resorted to concealment as he
had not given reference of Writ Petition
12 All. Rakesh Kumar Shukla Vs. L.D.A. & Ors.
607
No. 1701 M/ B of 1998, which Kaushal
Kishore Shukla had filed. He has also not
given reference of Regular Suit no. 233 of
1995, which had been filed by Kaushal
Kishore Shukla against L.D.A. in which
application for Interim Injunction was
rejected by the Court of Munsif Havali on
31.03.1998. The father of the petitioner had
also filed Writ Petition No. 1701 (M/B) of
1998, which was disposed of by this court
on the first date . True copies of the order
dated 25.04.1995 and of order dated
31.03.1998 passed by Munsif Havali
Lucknow in Civil Suit no. 233 of 1995
have been filed as Annexures to such
application for Recall.

14. Sri Sharad Pathak, learned counsel
for private respondent has pointed out the
plaint of Regular Suit No.233 of 1995,
which has been filed as Annexure to his
Counter Affidavit, and has stated that in
paragraph-1 of such plaint, the petitioner's
father had stated that Khasra No.88(Min.)
admeasuring 8 Biswa in Village Khargapur
Husariya was allotted to him in 1973 by the
Gram Sabha Khargapur Husariya
as
housing site and the plaintiff- Kaushal
Kishore Shukla was given the possession in
1973 by the Gram Panchayat and he built
his house in 1980 over the said housing
site. A boundary wall was also constructed.
It was also stated that in the plaint the
plaintiff - Kaushal Kishore Shukla had
planted 40 Eucalyptus Trees, 8 Mango
Trees, 3 Guava Trees, 10 Poplar Trees and
10 other trees in the open land surrounding
his house. On the northern side of the plot,
the boundary is mentioned as Sadak
Sarkari. An allegation was made against in
the plaintiff that the defendant-Lucknow
Development Authority that they had tried
to interfere in the possession of the plaintiff
on various dates and an attempt was made
to demolish the house and the boundary
wall of the disputed house/property situated
in Khasra No.88, Village Husariya

15. Further, it has been pointed out by
Sri Sharad Pathak from the Writ Petition
No. 1701 (M/ B) of 98 that was filed earlier
by the petitioner's father in 1998, a copy of
which has been filed as Annexure to the
Counter Affidavit that, in the said writ
petition, father of the petitioner had stated
that the respondents were threatening to
demolish his house in Village Husariya,
Post Malesemau, Lucknow, now also
known as Vineet Khand-I, Gomti Nagar,
Lucknow and that he had constructed a
house on the plot of land Khasra No. 88
admeasuring 6 Biswas on 02.09.1981, after
getting permission and patta from the Gram
Sabha Khargapur Husariya, Lucknow. The
then Pradhan of the Gram Sabha had given
patta on 02.09.1981. It has been stated in
the Counter Affidavit of the private
respondent that there is no mention in the
said writ petition of alleged earlier patta
granted in 1973 of 2 Bigha land for housing
purposes. The said Writ Petition No. 1701
(M/B) 1998 was disposed of on the first
day itself by this Court by observing that
counsel for the Lucknow Development
Authority had stated that the Lucknow
Development Authority would act only in
accordance with law.

16. It has been submitted by the
counsel for the private Respondent that
later Writ Petition No. 8426 (M/B) 2009
was filled praying for a writ in the nature of
Certiorari quashing Annexure-1, which is a
letter dated 12.08.2009 issued by the Under
Secretary,
Lucknow
Development
Authority indicating that an earlier letter
had been issued on 12.11.2008 wherein it
has been stated that Plot No.A-1/205
Vineet Khand, Gomti Nagar may be taken
from him and it its place, father of the
608 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
petitioner may be adjusted by giving a plot
to him in Gomti Nagar Vistar Yojana at
current rate of Rs.112.50 per Sq. Mtr.
However, the father of the petitioner had
not given any consent for such adjustment.
Father of the petitioner was informed that
registry has to be executed in favour of the
allottee of plot in Vineet Khand, Gomti
Nagar, in case no consent is given by
Kaushal Kishore Shukla, then demolition
of the petitioner's encroachment would be
undertaken soon. A prayer was made in this
Writ Petition No. 8426(M/B) 2009 for
issuance of a Mandamus to regularize the
occupancy of House No.1-205 Vineet
Khand, Gomti Nagar in favour of the father
of the petitioner after taking requisite
Development Charges. A prayer was
further made for quashing the allotment
order made in favour of opposite party no.2
V. D. Keshari i.e. father of private
respondent.

17. Since Writ Petition No.8426
(M/B) of 2009 was listed along with writ
petition filed by V.D. Keshari, namely,
Writ Petition No.1970 (M/B) of 2001 and
no counsel appeared to press this petition,
while the writ petition filed by the
petitioner's father was dismissed for want of
prosecution, writ petition filed by the father
of private respondent Late V.D. Keshari
(Substituted by Vimal Chand Keshari) was
disposed of with the observation that in case
a representation is moved by him to the
Vice-
Chairman/Secretary,
Lucknow
Development
Authority
raising
his
grievance and annexing therewith all
documents in support of his claim, the same
shall be considered and a decision will be
taken in accordance with law by a reasoned
and speaking order, within four weeks from
the date a certified copy of the order dated
07.03.2024 was produced before the Vice
Chairman.

18. Writ Petition No.1970 (M/B) of
2001 filed by V.D. Keshari, father of
private respondent was only for issuance of
a writ in the nature of Mandamus
commanding opposite parties to perform its
legal
obligations
by
executing
and
registering the deed of conveyance in
respect of Plot No.A-1/205, Vineet Khand,
Gomti Nagar and to deliver its vacant
possession to the allottee after removal of
encroachments thereon.

19. Sri Sharadh Pathak, learned
counsel for private respondent while
arguing the matter on merits has submitted
further that the petitioner in his writ
petition has stated that the house was
constructed by his father on Khasra No.88.
However, a survey was done by a joint
team of revenue officials and the officials
of the Lucknow Development Authority
and it was found that house of the father of
the petitioner had actually been constructed
over Khasra No.55, which land had already
been acquired by notification issued under
Sections 4 and 6 of the U.P. Land
Acquisition Act and the compensation has
been paid to the recorded tenure holders. It
has also been argued that petitioner
concealed the report of the Consolidation
Officer dated 27.04.2024, wherein it was
apparent that the land upon which the
petitioner's father had constructed the
house was on Khasra No.55 and not on
Khasra No.88. Actually, a major portion of
Khasra No.88 is lying vacant, upon which
illegal encroachments had been made by
some other villagers. It has been argued
that it appears that when the Colony was
being developed, the father of the petitioner
moved towards the main road by leaving
the land on which he was claiming to be
allotted a housing patta. It has also been
submitted that patta that has been relied
upon and stated to have been issued in
12 All. Rakesh Kumar Shukla Vs. L.D.A. & Ors.
609
favour of Kaushal Kishore Shukla, is
apparently not a genuine housing site
allotment as the father of the petitioner was
working as Havaldar in the Army and was
not Below Poverty Line and he belonged to
General Category, therefore, he was not
falling within any of the categories as
provided under Section 198(F) of the
U.P.Z.A.L.R.
Act
for
preferential
allotment.

20. It has also been submitted that
petitioner's father had initially claimed that
patta had been given to him by the Gram
Sabha on 15.12.1973 for 2 Biswa of land
and then again in 1981 for 6 Biswa of land
i.e. total 8 Biswa land is alleged to have
been allotted. The 1981 patta is apparently
in violation of the amended provisions of
the U.P.Z.A.L.R. Act, which requires prior
permission of the Assistant Collector incharge of Sub Division for grant of patta.
Also, by that time the father of the
petitioner was not landless and not Below
Poverty Line.

21. Sri Ratnesh Chandra, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the
Lucknow
Development
Authority
has
pointed out from the Counter Affidavit
filed on behalf of L.D.A. on 26.03.2025
praying for dismissal of the petition that
plot no. 1/205 Vineet Khand, Gomti Nagar
was allotted in favour of V.D. Keshari on
18.07.1988 in pursuance of Cash Down
Payment
policy.
Since,
there
was
unauthorised construction and possession
over the said plot, so he could not be
delivered the possession of such plot and he
preferred Writ Petition No. 1970 (M/B) of
2001 before this Court, which was finally
decided by this Court by order dated
07.03.2024,
directing
the
substituted
petitioner Vimal Chand Keshari to file a
fresh representation before the Chairman/
Secretary
Lucknow
Development
Authority, and such representation would
be considered and decided in accordance
with law by reasoned and speaking order.

22. In compliance of such order dated
07.03.2024 Vimal Chand Keshari had
preferred representation on 11.03.2024 in
pursuance of which hearing took place on
22.04.2024. Vimal Chand Keshari, son of
V.D. Keshari and Rakesh Kumar Shukla,
son of Kaushal Kishore Shukla were
present
and
made
their
detailed
submissions. The records relating to the
case were also perused and thereafter a
reasoned and speaking order has been
passed, which has been challenged in the
petition.

23. It has also been stated in paragraph
8 of such Counter Affidavit filed by L.D.A.
that earlier also the Vice Chairman by his
order dated 05.05.1998 had directed that
possession of plot no. 1/205 to be delivered
to V.D. Keshari and Kaushal Kishore
Shukla be allotted some other plot on the
prevailing rates in some other Yojna.
Kaushal Kishore Shukla submitted various
applications before different authorities for
getting executed sale deed in respect of plot
no. 1/205 Vineet Khand,Gomti Nagar. He
did not give consent for allotment of
another
plot
in
another
Scheme
at
prevailing rates, and the earlier order dated
05.05.1998 stood automatically cancelled.

24. Also, in the said Counter Affidavit
of the Lucknow Development Authority,
genuineness of the alleged Housing patta
allotment made in 1973 and 1981 of 8
Biswa of land in khasra no. 88 village has
been strongly disputed. Such Patta was not
allotted in accordance with the provisions
of the U.P.Z.A.L.R. Act and could not be
treated to be a valid document. Even
610 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
otherwise the land on which the petitioners
father had constructed his house has been
identified as Khasra No.55, for which
payment of compensation has been made to
the recorded tenure holders on completion
of acquisition thereof. At no point of time,
the L.D.A. had admitted that the house was
situated over Khasra No.88, only the
submission of the father of the petitioner
was recorded in various orders that his
house was situated over Khasra No. 88.
However, after due survey, it has been
found that the plot in question 1/205,Vineet
Khand, Gomti Nagar is falling over Khasra
No. 55 and not Khasra no. 88. Copy of
Survey done through Electronic Total
Station method on 23.04.2024, by the
Tehsildar, the Revenue Inspector, the Area
lekhpal, and the Surveyor has been filed as
annexure CA 6 to the Counter Affidavit.

25. Sri Ratnesh Chandra, learned
counsel for the Lucknow Development
Authority has pointed out Annexure-CA-6
of Counter Affidavit filed by private
respondent, which is a report of the joint
team of the revenue officials and the
officials of the Lucknow Development
Authority along with a private company
namely
M/s
P.C.S.
Management
Consultancy Private Limited, which was
engaged to find out the location of Plot
No.88
and
Plot
No.55
of
Village
Khargapur, Husariya, Lucknow. Earlier
also, measurement and demarcation was
tried to be done , but the same could not be
carried out because of difficulty in
determining Fixed Points. Therefore, M/s
P.C.S. Management Consultancy Private
Limited team was engaged.They along with
revenue team and the team of the Lucknow
Development
Authority
officials
had
resorted to Electronic Total Station (ETS)
Survey, which is a computerized survey
and Khasra No.232, area 0.013 hectare
recorded as Nala was taken as a Fixed
Point. Such Nala was later on converted
into a road when the Gomti Nagar Vineet
Khand- I Scheme was developed. From this
Road/Nala/Khasra No.232, the location of
Khasra No.55 and Khasra No.88 was
found. The house of the petitioner's father
was found to be situated at Plot No.55 and
not on Plot No.88 and Plot No.55
admeasuring 0.6100 hectares had already
been acquired in the land acquisition
proceedings and compensation was paid to
the recorded tenure holders, Ram Prasad,
Santosh Kumar and others.

26. It has been stated by the Lucknow
Development Authority in its Counter
Affidavit that since it is clear that House on
Plot No.1/205, Vineet Khand, Gomti Nagar
is constructed over part of Khasra No.55,
which has been acquired after payment of
compensation to the recorded tenure
holders by the impugned order dated
30.04.2024, the possession of the said plot
was directed to be taken within a period of
one week and it was directed that the same
be handed over to private respondent in the
impugned order dated 30.04.2024.

27. It has been pointed out by Shri
Ratnesh Chandra from page 18 of the writ
petition which is the impugned order dated
30.04.2024, that Vice-Chairman, Lucknow
Development Authority has dealt with the
allotment made in favour of V.D. Keshari.
The records relating to such allotment had
been examined by the Vice-Chairman and
it was found that Plot No.1/205, Vineet
Khand, Gomti Nagar had been given on the
basis of a Scheme floated by the Lucknow
Development Authority to V.D. Keshari on
18.07.1988. The allottee had deposited the
entire amount of sale consideration along
with interest thereon and the stamp papers
were also made available by the allottee,
12 All. Rakesh Kumar Shukla Vs. L.D.A. & Ors.
611
but
because
of
the
unauthorised
encroachment over such plot of land by the
petitioners father, the sale deed could not
be executed. It has also been mentioned in
the impugned order that father of the
petitioner had been given a choice to take
another plot of land in Gomti Nagar Vistar
Yojana and Shri V.D. Keshari be given the
possession of Plot No.1/205, Vineet Khand,
Gomti Nagar. However, he had refused
such option given by the Lucknow
Development Authority by its letter dated
05.05.1998. It has also been mentioned in
the impugned order that V.D. Keshari, the
erstwhile allottee, died on 09.11.2016 and
private respondent, his son, has been
allotted Plot No.A-1/205, Vineet Khand,
Gomti Nagar on the basis of Will made out
in his favour by his father.

28. In the Rejoinder Affidavit filed by
the petitioner, it has been mentioned that
Writ Petition No.8426 (M/B) of 2009 was
filed by Late Kaushal Kishore Shukla and
Writ Petition No.1970 (M/B) of 2001 was
filed by Late V.D. Keshari. V.D. Keshari in
his writ petition had alleged that he has
been allotted Plot No.1/205, Vineet Khand,
Gomti
Nagar
by
the
Lucknow
Development Authority, whereas Late
Kaushal Kishore Shukla had said that a
housing site was allotted by the Land
Management Committee and Gram Sabha
Khargapur Husariya and such land was
never
acquired
by
the
Lucknow
Development Authority. Since the very
inception of the case, the Lucknow
Development Authority had stated that
House No.A-1/205, Vineet Khand, Gomti
Nagar was situated over Khasra No.88 and
it could not now turn around and say that
the house is constructed on Khasra no. 55
on the basis of report made by a survey
committee. It has also been stated in the
Rejoinder Affidavit that although in the
impugned order, mention has been made
that the petitioner was heard along with
private respondent by the Vice- Chairman,
Lucknow Development Authority, in fact
he was not heard at all and it was a one
sided order. The allotment in favour of Late
V.D. Keshari was illegal and the sale deed
was never executed in favour of Late V.D.
Keshari, therefore, his legal representatives
could not have been allotted the plot in
question only on the basis of a Will. It has
also been stated that Late V.D. Keshari has
fraudulently applied for allotment of plot in
Vineet Khand, Gomti Nagar, although, his
wife had already been allotted House
No.A-3/272,
Vishwas
Khand,
Gomti
Nagar.

29. In the Rejoinder Affidavit to the
Counter Affidavit filed by the Sri Sharad
Pathak, Counsel for the private respondent
which has been filed on 20.08.2025, the
petitioner has reiterated the contents of the
writ petition and contents of Writ Petition
No. 8426 (M/B) of 2009 filed by the father
of the petitioner. Denying the contents of
para 2 of the Counter Affidavit where in
allegation
of
misrepresentation
and
deliberate concealment has been made by
private respondent, it has been stated that
the order dated 11.06.1998 was annexed in
Writ Petition No. 8426 (M/B) of 2009. Writ
Petition No. 4177 (M/B) of 2024 has been
filed against order dated 30.04.2024. which
order is an altogether new order and
therefore there was no need of mentioning
the order dated 11.06.1998, which was
passed in reference to a different order
passed by the L.D.A. It has also been stated
that Writ Petition No.1701 (M/B) of 1998
related to a different cause of action and
had no concern with the present petition
which has been filed against order dated
30.04.2024. It has also been stated that in
petition no. 1701 (M/B) of 1998 and
612 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
petition no. 8426 (M/B) of 2009, this court
had directed L.D.A. to take appropriate
action. Therefore, Regular Suit no. 233 of
1995 became redundant and it was not
necessary to carry on with it any further or
to mention it in the Writ Petition No.4177
(M/B) of 2024.

30. In Paragraph 6 of such Rejoinder
Affidavit, it has been stated that actually
the father of the petitioner was allotted a
total of 10,000 ft.2 of land through two
Pattas. Two Biswa of land i.e. 272 2 ft.2
was given in 1973, and at that time
approval from the SDM was not required.
Later on, housing patta of 6 Biswa of land
was given in 1981, i.e. 816 6 ft.2 Later on,
some land was taken by the L.D.A. for
construction of Road and for carving out
plot no. 1/206, 1/204, 1/203F. Presently
only 6500 ft.2 of land is available with the
petitioner. It has also been stated that after
the order dated 29.05.2024, the L.D.A. has
demolished the boundary wall of the
petitioner on 05.06.2024. The house of the
petitioner is constructed over 1100 ft.2 of
the land and not 645 ft.2 only as alleged by
the respondents.

31. It has also been argued by Sri
Anshuman
Singh
that
the
Lucknow
Development Authority could not be
allowed to change its stand and take an
altogether different stand by saying that the
super imposition of Google map was done
and House No.A-1/205, Vineet Khand,
Gomti Nagar belonging to the petitioner
was found over Khasra No.55. No Survey
commission was ever conducted and only
on the basis of such non-existent Survey,
the location of the house of the petitioner
cannot be ascertained. A dispute has also
been raised regarding the survey that was
allegedly conducted on 23.04.2024 as it has
been stated that such survey has taken the
entire Nala as Fixed Point. As per the
Survey Rules, no Fixed Point can be taken
over Nala Road or River at all as these
things have no corners and only two
parallel arms over which Fixed Point
cannot be taken until there is corner. It has
also been argued that an alternate land was
offered by the father of the petitioner on the
current
rate
in
1998,
whereas,
the
petitioner's house was constructed over a
plot given to his father in 1973 sometimes
in 1981.

C. Examination of pleadings by the
Court:-

32. Since the records of Writ Petition
No. 1701 (M/B) 2005: Kaushal Kishore
Shukla v. State of U.P. and others and Writ
Petition No. 8426 (M/B) 2009 had been
summoned by an earlier order and they
were tagged to the instant writ petition, we
have perused the said records.

33. Writ Petition No.- 1970 (M/B) of
2001 was filed by V.D. Keshari, father of
the private respondent, praying for a
direction to be issued to the L.D.A. to
perform it's legal obligation by executing
and registering deed of conveyance in
respect of plot no. A - 1/205, Vineet
Khand, Gomti Nagar, and also to deliver its
vacant possessions to the petitioner after
removal of encroachment thereon within
time as prescribed by the Court; and also
for
a
direction
to
the
Lucknow
Development Authority not to transfer the
said plot in question, either as a whole or in
piecemeal by way of allotment to any other
person.

34. A perusal of the record of this
petition shows that when the writ petition
was taken up as fresh on 27.04.2001, the
Court noted that the petitioner had already
12 All. Rakesh Kumar Shukla Vs. L.D.A. & Ors.
613
deposited the entire amount for the plot in
question and directed the Standing Counsel
for the L.D.A. to seek instructions in the
matter,
and
in
the
meantime,
the
respondents were directed not to allot the
plot in question to any other person till next
date of listing of the Court.

35. Writ Petition No.1970(M/B) of
2001
was
dismissed
for
want
of
prosecution on 03.04.2013. An application
for restoration was filed on 24.07.2014,
which
was
dismissed
for
want
of
prosecution on 13.01.2017. V. D. Keshari
had died on 09.11.2016 and an application
for substitution and an application for recall
were filed which were both allowed on
08.11.2017. The petition was listed for
hearing, but no one appeared to the court
and writ petition was again dismissed for
want of prosecution on 22.05.2018. An
application for recall of order dated
22.05.2018 was filed which was rejected by
this Court by its order dated 09.08.2019.
Again application for recall was filed,
which was eventually allowed and writ
petition was restored to its original number
on 20.04.2022 by this Court on 09.11.2016.
Vimal Chand Keshari S/o V.D. Keshari had
sought substitution as he had been
appointed to succeed upon the property in
dispute on the basis of a registered Will
deed executed by his father on 21.08.2015
in his favour.

36. Writ Petition No. 1970(M/B) of
2001 was directed to be listed along with
Writ Petition No. 8426(M/B) of 2009,
Kishore Shukla Vs. L.D.A. on 20.03.2023.
Writ Petition No.