The court disposed of the writ petition by following a prior Division Bench judgment directing the respondent authority to consider the petitioner's representation regarding lease plan sanction and plot possession. No specific relief was granted de novo.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:177346-DB
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
(Sl No.42)
Court No. - 21
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 37174 of 2024
Petitioner :- Jitendra Kumar
Respondent :- The Greater New Okhla Industrial Development Authority And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Singh Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- Anjali Upadhya,C.S.C.
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J. Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J.
1. Heard Sri Ajay Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Anjali Upadhyay, contesting for respondent nos. 1 & 2.
2. The present writ petition is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia , for the following relief:-
"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider and decide the representation dated 21.10.2024 (Annexure No.-1 to the writ petition) filed by the petitioner before the respondent authority forthwith regarding redressal of his grievances in respect of sanction of lease plan over the plot allotted to him and take consequential steps according."
3. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Division Bench this Court in Devendra Vs. The Greater New Okhla Industrial Development Authority And 2 Others (Writ-C No. 40408 of 2023, dt. 19.2.2024) and as such, it is sought to be contended that the present matter is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment and the similar treatment may also be extended to the petitioner. For ready reference, the order dated 19.2.2024 is reproduced herein as under:-
"1. The prayer made in the instant petition is for a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner dated 21.9.2023 and forthwith sanction lease plan of the plot allotted to him under its policy relating to allotment of developed land to such tenure holders whose lands were acquired by the Authority for public purpose.
2. As large number of such type of cases are coming before this Court every day, therefore by order dated 19.12.2023, we required the Authority to disclose how many such cases are pending before it and also to bring on record the measures it would take to address such concerns.
3. An affidavit has been filed by respondent no. 2 stating that the petitioner has now been allotted Plot No. 111A, having an area of 440 sq. meters.
3. Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri Vineet Pandey, appearing for Greater Noida Authority, states that possession of the said plot would be delivered to the petitioner within three weeks, if not already delivered. He points out that in connected matter, i.e. Writ - C No. 41689 of 2023 (Sunil Dutt Tyagi vs. State of U.P. and 4 others), the respondent-Authority had filed an affidavit disclosing that it had decided to engage a technical expert for land audit and survey. After the said exercise is carried out and vacant lands are identified, the persons who are entitled to allotment of developed plots would be made available the developed land and has given assurance that the said exercise would be completed within six months.
4. In view of the aforesaid stand of Greater Noida Authority, we dispose of the instant petition by providing that the petitioner would be delivered possession of the allotted plot, if not already delivered, within three weeks. It is also expected of the Authority to abide by the undertaking given by it in respect of allotment of developed plots to other persons entitled thereto within six months so as to avoid unnecessary burdening of the docket of this Court."
4. The above said argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is not being disputed by learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel as well as counsel for the respondent-Development Authority.
5. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of in terms of Devendra(supra) .
Order Date :- 12.11.2024 Shubham Arya
(Anish Kumar Gupta, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.)
Digitally signed by :- SHUBHAM ARYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition seeking direction to consider and decide the petitioner's representation regarding lease plan sanction and plot possession is maintainable in light of prior precedent.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Devendra Vs. The Greater New Okhla Industrial Development Authority And 2 OthersFollowed¶13
Devendra Vs. The Greater New Okhla Industrial Development Authority And 2 Others (Writ-C No. 40408 of 2023, dt. 19.2.2024)
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Jitendra Kumar
The Greater New Okhla Industrial Development Authority
Manoj Kumar Gupta
Anish Kumar Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
