JUDGMENT D.N. Jha, J. - The facts giving rise to this petition are that plot No. 3 situate at Moti Jheel, Aishbagh, Lucknow, was allotted in favour of Ram Lal (deceased) father of opposite parties 6 to 13 and husband of opposite party No. 5. The tenancy of Rani Lal came to an end on 31-7-1967 on the expiry of five years for which the lease had been originally granted. Thereafter allotment order No. 1243/NS dated March 14, 1973 was made in favour of the petitioner S.K. Khanna. This was done in view of the principles laid down in G.O. No. 5436-H/XXXVII-57(N) 62, dated October 24, 1963. The petitioner not only gave his consent but also deposited the premium of Rs. 7,560/- and rent of Rs. 278/- for one year vide cheque No. 0613841, dated March 21, 1973 drawn in favour of the Nazul Officer, Nagar Maha-palika, Lucknow. But the lease deed had not been executed nor it had been registered. On 9-3-1978 another allotment of the said plot was made in favour of Ram Lal at Moti Jheel, Aishbagh, Lucknow. On a rent of Rs. 268/-. It appears from the record that Ram Lal had also deposited premium on the arrears of lease rent and the cost of the form and plan. The authorities came to the conclusion that since the allotment of S.K. Khanna had not been cancelled, therefore, the plot could not be re-allotted to Ram Lal, hence proceedings were initiated before the Prescribed Authority for eviction of Ram Lal under the U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act). It may be mentioned that the Chairman, Lucknow Development Authority, on 21-11-1980 after inquiry had passed an order whereby he had held the possession of Ram Lal invalid. Ram Lal feeling aggrieved challenged the said order of the Chairman, Lucknow Development Authority, dated November 21, 1980 be means of Writ Petition No. 864 of 1981. This writ petition was dismissed as it was not pressed after argument had been heard. This order is dated March 3, 1981 and is Annexure 7 to this writ petition. 2. The Prescribed Authority vide order dated January 6, 1981 ordered for eviction of Ram Lal from plot No. 3 situate at Moti Jheel, Aishbagh, Lucknow, and he was directed to vacate plot No. 3. A copy of this order is Annexure 11. This order is dated March 3, 1981 and is Annexure 7 to this writ petition. 2. The Prescribed Authority vide order dated January 6, 1981 ordered for eviction of Ram Lal from plot No. 3 situate at Moti Jheel, Aishbagh, Lucknow, and he was directed to vacate plot No. 3. A copy of this order is Annexure 11. In January, 1981 Ram Lal filed an appeal in the Court of the District Judge, Lucknow, against the order of the Prescribed Authority. The VIth Additional District Judge allowed the aforesaid appeal and remanded the case to the Prescribed Authority for hearing afresh. Copy of this order dated April 9, 1983 is Annexure 9 to the writ petition. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner has filed this petition before this Court. 3. The petition has been resisted on behalf of opposite parties 5 to 13 who are the legal heirs of Ram Lal and a counter-affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the Lucknow Development Authority. It is not necessary to spell out in details the averments made in the counter-affidavit because the respondents in the petition during the course of arguments stated that, the then Chairman, Lucknow Development Authority, vide order dated November 21, 1980 had observed that in case Ram Lal voluntarily vacates plot No. 3 referred to above, he should be allotted plot No. 8 in the same area on the same terms and conditions and he has expressed that if this plot is allotted he will be able to carry on his livelihood. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. It is no doubt true that Ram Lal had not voluntarily vacated plot No. 3 and the authorities had to resort to legal method for his eviction and these proceedings are pending even till this date. 5. In fact I would not have ordinarily entertained this writ petition since it was directed against a remand order but when it transpired that the matter had been lingering on since 1972 it was thought proper that at least the question of allotment should be disposed of finally rather than making the litigation move on from court to court. With this purpose the entire record of the Lucknow Development Authority and the Prescribed Authority regarding the present dispute had been summoned. With this purpose the entire record of the Lucknow Development Authority and the Prescribed Authority regarding the present dispute had been summoned. There cannot be any doubt that the lease standing on the name of Ram Lal had come to an end with respect to plot No. 3 situate at Moti Jheel, Aishbagh, Lucknow, and a fresh allotment had been made in favour of the petitioner. There is nothing on record to show that the allotment made in favour of the petitioner had been cancelled at any stage. Apart from this it transpires that even the premium to the tune of Rs. 7,560/- and rent of Rs. 278/- had been charged from the petitioner. This aspect has not been disputed. 6. The question that arises for consideration is that when there was a subsisting allotment in favour of the petitioner how a fresh allotment was made in favour of Ram Lal with respect to the same plot and a premium and rent had also been charged from him. On perusal of various documents it leaves no room for doubt that some underhand current had been flowing in the matter and in order to give life to the previous allotment of Ram Lal surreptitiously this allotment order had been issued by an authority which was not competent in law. There are notings on the file which indicate that truth was suppressed and some underhand current had been discharged to dislodge the petitioner from the plot in dispute. It is not necessary to spell out the minute details with respect to dispute since Ram Lal unfortunately expired during this prolonged litigation before the court below and his legal heirs are before this Court. The legal heirs did not contest this petition although a counter-affidavit was filed. On their behalf only a genuine and bona fide request has been made to the effect that, in order to provide livelihood to the members of the family of the deceased Ram Lal, orders may be issued for allotment of plot No. 8 or some other plot in the vicinity as had been proposed by Sri Ganga Ram, the then Chairman of the Lucknow Development Authority on 21-11-1980. The Courts normally are inclined to take a lenient view when such a request comes from the persons belonging to weaker section of the society. The Courts normally are inclined to take a lenient view when such a request comes from the persons belonging to weaker section of the society. The order of allotment made in favour of Ram Lal being void and illegal cannot be sustained and is declared inoperative for all practical purposes. 7. It is also brought to may notice that there is Civil Suit No. 11 of 1891 filed by the petitioner for delivery of possession in the Court of Civil Judge, Malihabad, Lucknow, and Civil Suit No. 150 of 1980 filed by Smt. Ganga Dei, widow of deceased Ram Lal, against the Nazul Officer and others, in the Court of Civil Judge Malihabad, Lucknow, for specific performance are pending. The learned counsel for the petitioner gives an undertaking that he will withdraw his suit forthwith. Likewise the learned counsel for the Ram Lakhan, opposite party No. 5, undertakes to withdraw the suit for specific performance filed by him forthwith. In view of this gesture I am of the opinion that the case of legal heirs of Ram Lal deceased calls for sympethatic consideration. 8. On giving my anxious consideration to the entire facts and circumstances and the undertaking given by the learned counsel for the parties hereby set aside the order dated April 9, 1983 passed by the VIth Additional District Judge, Lucknow', and allow this writ petition. I direct that the Lucknow Development Authority will immediately put the petitioner in possession of plot No. 3 Moti Jheel, Aishbagh, Lucknow, and register the lease deed already executed in favour of the petitioner within fifteen days of receipt of this order. I further direct that the Lucknow Development Authority will allot plot No. 8 situate at Moti Jheel, Aishbagh Lucknow, or some other suitable plot to the heirs of deceased Ram Lal and hand over its possession after execution of necessary documents within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order. Let mandamus issue accordingly. In the circumstances of the case I direct the parties to bear their own costs.