Pradyuman Shukla vs State of Up and 3 Others

Heard Sri Anurag Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Fuzail Ahmad Ansari, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Sri Abhinava Krishna Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for Kanpur Development Authority.

¶10

The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for the following relief-

¶11

"(i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus to commanding the the respondent authority to execute the freehold sale deed of Commercial Plot no. VYAV113 H-155, Scheme Vyapar Nagar (Ispat), District Kanpur Nagar, measuring 31.92 Square Meter in the favor of the petitioner pursuance to the allotment Letter dated 30/09/2007 within a short stipulated time period as may specified by this Hon'ble Court.

¶12

(ii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus to commanding the respondents to consider and decide the claim of the petitioner date 09/09/2025 with regard to the execution of the freehold sale deed of Commercial Plot no. VYAV113 H-155, Scheme Vyapar Nagar (Ispat), District Kanpur Nagar, measuring 31.92 Square Meter in the favor of the petitioner pursuance to the allotment Letter dated 30/09/2007 issued consequent to the Draw/Lottery"

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his submissions states that the petitioner had deposited requisite amount in terms of the

¶14

WRIC No. 40418 of 2025

¶15

2

¶16

allotment letter dated 30.09.2007 but in spite of his best endeavour, sale deed had not been executed by the Kanpur Development Authority. In such situation, the petitioner is compelled to invoke the writ jurisdiction.

¶17

Sri Abhinava Krishna Srivastava, learned counsel for Kanpur Development Authority on his instructions, submits that admittedly, requisite amount has been deposited by the petitioner but till date, the same could not be verified by the Authority. However, he ensures to the Court that in case, the amount deposited by the petitioner is duly verified, definitely the grievance of the petitioner shall be redressed in accordance with law.

¶18

Considering the factual situation, without adverting into the merit of the case, we expect that the Secretary, Kanpur Development Authority shall consider the grievance of the petitioner in accordance with law expeditiously preferable within a period of six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

¶19

With the aforesaid observation, the instant writ petition stands disposed of .

¶20

(Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.) November 26, 2025

¶21

Sumit S

¶22

Digitally signed by :- SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Pradyuman Shukla v. State of Up and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradyuman Shukla v. State of Up and 3 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

Similar cases

Asad Ahmad and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rajab Akhtar and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Anoop Kumar Seth vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Ramesh Kumar and 17 Others vs the State of U.P. and 4 Others

Mohd. Meraz vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Bablu and 22 Others vs National Highway Authority of India and 2 Others