Sunil Kumar Shukla vs Lucknow Development Authority Lko. Thru. Vice Chairman Lko. and 4 Others

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel who appears on behalf of the State-Respondents, and Shri Ratnesh Chandra, learned counsel for the Lucknow Development Authority, who has produced the printout of the original scanned file maintained in the office of the L.D.A. with regard to the property in question, Plot No. B-1/248, Sector-H, Kanpur Road Scheme.

¶12

It is the case of the petitioner that he had purchased the property in question from one Arvind Raj Keshar Tiwari, a copy of whose sale deed has been filed at page 239 of the writ petition. Arvind Raj Keshar Tiwari had purchased the property from Shri M.B. Singh S/o Shivratan Singh through a registered sale deed dated 24.05.2000. Shri M.B. Singh S/o Shivratan Singh had obtained the property from A.K. Singh, Property In-charge, L.D.A. on 04.08.1991.

¶13

When the petitioner attempted to construct a boundary wall, his construction was objected to and he received a letter dated 10.04.2025 sent by the Deputy Secretary, L.D.A. indicating that a committee had been constituted by the Vice-Chairman, L.D.A. with regard to a complaint received in respect of the plot in question. On the basis of the recommendations of the said committee, the Vice-Chairman, L.D.A., by order dated 01.04.2025, directed the lodging of an F.I.R., as it was found that certain fraudulent activities concerning the registration of the plot were evident from the record. The allotment made in favour of Shri M.B. Singh had been cancelled, and consequently, the sale deed executed in favour of Shri M.B. Singh, as well as the sale deed

¶14

WRIC No. 11216 of 2025

¶15

2

¶16

executed in favour of the petitioner's vendor, Arvind Raj Keshar Tiwari were rendered liable to cancellation. The plot in question was proposed to be put to e-auction by the Vice-Chairman, L.D.A., by order dated 01.04.2025. The petitioner, challenging the said order, approached this Court in Writ-C No.4234 of 2025.

¶17

On the basis of the instructions produced by learned counsel for the L.D.A., the Court came to the conclusion that no notice had been given to the petitioner prior to cancelling the allotment made in favour of the original allottee i.e. M.B. Singh, which was made way back in 1995.

¶18

The Court found that since the principles of natural justice had been violated, directions were issued that notice be given to the petitioner along with the material forming the basis of such notice within ten days. The petitioner was directed to reply to the notice within three weeks and the competent authority of the L.D.A. was directed to take a decision in the matter in accordance with law after affording personal hearing to the petitioner, if required.

¶19

After disposal of the said writ petition on 07.05.2025, a notice was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner replied to the notice and now the impugned order has been passed on 29.10.2025 by the Vice-Chairman, L.D.A., wherein mention has been made of the hearing of the petitioner's representatives and also of Arvind Raj Keshar Tiwari and Rajiv Singh, S/o M.B. Singh on 05.06.2025. However, it has been stated in the impugned order that no relevant papers could be produced by any of them. As a result, the alleged illegal construction being carried out on the plot in question was directed to be stopped and further directions were issued for the e-auction of the plot. The allotment of Shri M.B. Singh made in 1995 by the L.D.A. has been cancelled.

¶20

It has been submitted that the sale deed of the petitioner has not been cancelled by any competent court of law. The sale deed executed in favour of Shri M. B. Singh has also not been cancelled by any competent court of law. Likewise, the sale deed executed in favour of Arvind Raj Keshar Tiwari has not been cancelled by any competent court of law. There are three sale deeds in existence; one of 1999, the second of 2000, and the third of 2024 with respect to the plot in question. However, the L.D.A. has now directed the e-auction of the plot.

¶21

WRIC No. 11216 of 2025

¶22

3

¶23

Shri Ratnesh Chandra, learned counsel for the L.D.A., on the basis of the original scanned copy of the file with respect to Plot No. B-1/248, has stated that although the plot was allotted to Shri M. B. Singh, who was then Deputy Commissioner, he did not pay the entire dues and till 2010, there is correspondence on record showing that communications were exchanged with the L.D.A. regarding one time settlement for payment of earlier dues. Therefore, no sale deed could have been executed or registered in the year 1999 as alleged.

¶24

It has also been stated that the son of M.B. Singh has filed an application for review of the judgment and order dated 07.05.2025 passed by this Court, which is pending.

¶25

Issue notice to respondent no. 5.

¶26

Steps shall be taken both ways within a week by counsel for the petitioner and an affidavit of service shall be filed within two weeks thereafter.

¶27

List this matter after three weeks.

¶28

In the meantime, counter affidavit shall be filed by all respondents.

¶29

Till the next date of listing, e-auction of the plot in question shall not be conducted by the Lucknow Development Authority.

¶30

The petitioner is also restrained from creating any third party rights on the plot in question.

¶31

November 21, 2025 Mahesh

¶32

(Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) (Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.)

¶33

Digitally signed by :- MAHESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sunil Kumar Shukla v. Lucknow Development Authority Lko. Thru. Vice Chairman Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Kumar Shukla v. Lucknow Development Authority Lko. Thru. Vice Chairman Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shiv Karan Prasad Gupta vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 3 Others

Matsya Jivi Sahkari Samiti Ltd. Tahsil Sandila Distt. Hardoi Thru. Chairman in Charge Rajendra vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko. and Others

Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Defence New Delhi and 3 Others vs 820280EX Nc (E) Raghu Nath Singh

Achchhelal vs Smt. Ashrafi

Anjan Kumar Banerjee and 22 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Housing and Urban Development Lko and 3 Others

Veerendra Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko. and 12 Others