Disposed

Santosh Kumar Chaubey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Awas Evam Sahari-Niyojan Vibhag, Govt. Up Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC12 May 2022/2581/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition was disposed of. The court accepted the petitioner's ability to deposit the required amount to revive flat allotment and extended the deadline from June 30 to August 30, 2022.

What did the court decide?

Extension granted for depositing required amount to revive flat allotment; deadline extended to 30-08-2022.

Santosh Kumar Chaubey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Awas Evam Sahari-Niyojan Vibhag, Govt. Up Lko. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2022) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Court No. - 2

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 2581 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Santosh Kumar Chaubey Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Awas Evam Sahari-Niyojan Vibhag, Govt. Up Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anand Pal Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Kumar Ayush,Ratnesh Chandra

¶4

Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya,J. Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Kumar Ayush, learned counsel representing the Lucknow Development Authority.

¶6

Pursuant to our order dated 07-05-2022 learned counsel representing the Lucknow Development Authority Shri Kumar Ayush has been able to get certain instructions which are contained in the letter dated 10-05-2022 written by Additional Secretary, Lucknow Development Authority. The said instructions are taken on record.

¶7

As per the said instructions, the total amount to be deposited by the petitioner along with the interest is Rs.13,56,556/-. Along with the said amount the petitioner is also required to make a deposit of free hold charges, water charges and sewerage charges. He is also required to make a deposit of one per cent of the amount i.e. Rs.51,280/- for reviving the allotment.

¶8

As per the instruction the petitioner is thus required to deposit a total sum of Rs.13,91,372/- and if he deposits the said amount by 30-06-2022 the allotment of the flat may be revived.

¶9

The aforesaid offer contained in the letter of the Additional Secretary on 10-05-2022 addressed to the learned counsel representing Lucknow Development Authority is acceptable to the petitioner as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He however, states that it will be difficult for the petitioner to make a deposit of such huge amount by 30-06-2022 and as such some more time may be granted.

¶10

Accordingly, having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we provide that the amount which has been mentioned in the letter dated 10-05-2022 of the Additional Secretary, Lucknow Development Authority shall be permitted to be deposited by the petitioner by 30-08-2022 and in case during this period the petitioner makes the deposit of the aforesaid amount the allotment of the flat shall stand revived.

¶11

A copy of the letter dated 10-05-2022 written by Additional Secretary, Lucknow Development Authority which is addressed to the learned counsel representing the Lucknow Development Authority shall be handed over to the petitioner during the course of the day.

¶12

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶13

Order Date :- 12.5.2022 pks

¶14

Digitally signed by PANKAJ KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Date: 2022.05.13 14:59:13 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Santosh Kumar Chaubey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Awas Evam Sahari-Niyojan Vibhag, Govt. Up Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Kumar Chaubey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Awas Evam Sahari-Niyojan Vibhag, Govt. Up Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Darshan Kaur Vs State of U.P.Throu.Prin.Secy.Revenue Deptt.Lko.and Ors.

Padri Kripal Kisan Seva Sahkari Samiti Thru. Its Chairman Vs Union of India Min. of Agriculture G.O.I. Thru. Its Secy.

Smt. Panna Devi Vs State of U.P.Thru Prin.Secy.Deptt.of Panchayati Raj Lko.andORS

Mangla Prashad Verma Vs State of U.P.Thru.Prin.Secy.Dep.of Revenue and Ors.

M/S U.P. Jal Vidyut Nigam Ltd. Thru. Mahesh Chandra Pal Vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Ministry of Finance and 3 Others

Mewa Lal Vs State of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy.Housing Urban and Planning Deptt.and 5 Others