Ganesh Shanker Tripathi v. Lucknow Development Authority Thru Its Vice Chairman, Lucknow

Allahabad HC1 Dec 2025A227/6955/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Execution petition under Article 227 against dismissal of an execution application seeking allotment of a Gomti Nagar plot by LDA pursuant to a consumer commission order. Court issued notice for counter affidavit, listed for January 2026, and restrained third-party allotment of plot no.4/385-S.

What did the court decide?

Interim order that Plot No.4/385-S, Sector 4 Gomti Nagar Extension not be allotted to any third party; counter affidavit permitted within four weeks; case listed for week commencing 19.01.2026.

Ganesh Shanker Tripathi vs Lucknow Development… — Consumer Protection | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6955 of 2025

¶3

Ganesh Shanker Tripathi

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi Thru. Registrar And 2 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Prashant Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : Ratnesh Chandra

¶9

Court No. - 17

¶10

HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

¶11

Heard Sri Prashant Chandra, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Mahima Pahwa, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ratnesh Chandra, the learned counsel for the opposite party no.3 and perused the records.

¶12

At the outset the learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the opposite parties no.1 and 2-National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission have been impleaded as opposite parties to the petition erroneously and he made an oral request for deletion of the aforesaid opposite parties.

¶13

The request is accepted and the learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to incorporate necessary corrections in the memo of petition forthwith and other related documents.

¶14

The Registry of this court is directed to incorporate the consequential corrections in the records/computer systems of this court.

¶15

By means of the instant petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged the validity of an order dated 27.03.2025, passed by State Consumer Disputes

¶16

A227 No. 6955 of 2025

¶17

¶18

Redressal Commission in Execution Case No.43 of 2008, whereby the execution application was dismissed by observing that the order in question already stands complied with.

¶19

The petitioner had challenged the aforesaid order dated before National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission by filing an Execution Appeal No.27 of 2025, which has been dismissed by means of an order dated 04.07.2025 and that order has also been challenged by the petitioner.

¶20

The petitioner had filed Complaint Case No.136 of 2011 which was allowed by means of a judgment and order dated 21.08.2015, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission directing the opposite party (Lucknow Development Authority) to deliver possession of a plot measuring 200 square meters in Gomti Nagar, Lucknow or in any other scheme in terms of the allotment letter dated 25.10.1993 and also to take Rs.10,000/- as cost to the complainant.

¶21

On 18.04.2018 the Lucknow Development Authority allotted a plot of land situated in Sharda Nagar Scheme to the petitioner. The petitioner thereafter filed Execution Application No.43 of 2018 and numerous orders were passed therein directing the Lucknow Development Authority to allot a plot of land measuring 200 square meters situated in Gomti Nagar Scheme/Gomti Nagar Extension. Copies of numerous orders have been brought on record wherein it is recorded that hundreds of vacant plots were available in Gomti Nagar/Gomti Nagar Extension Scheme and the Lucknow Development Authority was not justified in not allotting a plot of land to the petitioner in Gomti Nagar/Gomti Nagar Extension Scheme. Some orders had been challenged by the parties before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission/this court but none of the orders was set aside. National Disputes Redressal Commission has recorded in the order dated 22.01.2016, passed in First Appeal No.761 of 2015 filed by the petitioner that 353 vacant plots were available in Gomti Nagar Extension Scheme and left it open for being dealt with by executing court.

¶22

A227 No. 6955 of 2025

¶23

¶24

Sri Prashant Chandra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that when the State Commission passed numerous orders directing the LDA to allot a plot of land to the petitioner in Gomti Nagar/Gomti Nagar Extension Scheme as hundreds of vacant plots are available in those schemes and LDA challenged those orders unsuccessfully, the State Commission was not justified in dismissing the execution application by ignoring its own previous orders which had not been interfered with upon challenge.

¶25

On 02.12.2025 the State Commission has passed an order in Execution Case No.43 of 2018, wherein it is recorded that 'the execution case in question before this court has been pending for more than 06 years and the Authority has been adopting the process of postponing the case for various reasons, which is also a clear violation of the orders of this court. On the last date 19-092024, an application has been submitted on behalf of the complainant for not allotting plot number-4/385-5, Sector-4 Gomti Nagar Extension, to any third party, till date no reply has been given by the authority to the above application nor any action has been taken, for which three weeks' time is given to the counsel of the opposite party/Authority, Shri Dilip Kumar Shukla and the opposite party/Authority is prevented from allocating plot number4/385-S, Sector-4 Gomtinagar Extension, to any third party."

¶26

Per contra, Sri Ratnesh Chandra, the learned counsel for the LDA states that the order passed by State Commission merely directed for allotment of a plot in Gomti Nagar Scheme or any other scheme. The LDA has rightly allotted the petitioner a plot in Sharda Nagar Scheme and, therefore, the order dated 21.08.2015 already stands complied with.

¶27

Prima facie, it appears that when the State Commission had passed numerous orders providing that since hundreds of vacant plots are available in Gomti Nagar/Gomti Nagar Extension Scheme, the LDA shuold allot a plot in those schemes.

¶28

A227 No. 6955 of 2025

¶29

¶30

The matter requires detailed consideration.

¶31

The opposite party may file a counter affidavit within a period of four weeks. In case counter affidavit is filed the petitioner may file a rejoinder affidavit within one week thereafter.

¶32

List this case in the week commencing 19.01.2026.

¶33

Meanwhile, as an interim measure it is provided that Plot No.4/385-S, Sector 4 Gomti Nagar Extension will not be allotted to any third party as was ordered earlier by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on 02.12.2024.

¶34

December 1, 2025

¶35

Ram.

¶36

(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)

¶37

Digitally signed by :- RAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ganesh Shanker Tripathi v. Lucknow Development Authority Thru Its Vice Chairman, Lucknow

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ganesh Shanker Tripathi v. Lucknow Development Authority Thru Its Vice Chairman, Lucknow

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jai Bahadur Singh and Ors. vs State of U.P. Thru D.M. Sultanpur and Ors.

Puneet Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue, Lko and 2 Others

Lallan vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue, Lko. and Others

Bharat Swayam Sahayata Samuh Thru. the Member Smt. Sushila Devi vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Food and Supply Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko. and 4 Others

Ishrat Zameer Khan vs Uttar Pradesh Waqf Tribunal Thru. Registrar and Ors.

Udai Pratap Singh vs Deepak Sharma and Others