JUDGMENT S. Saghir Ahmad, J. - This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. 2. Notice of this petition was given to the counsel for opposite parties on June 7, 1985 and by order dated June 17, 1985 a week's time was given to him to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit was also required to be filed within a week thereafter. The petition was directed to be listed for admission/ hearing in the week commencing July 15, 1985. The counter - affidavit has not been filed and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties we proceed to dispose of the petition finally as only a short question of law is involved. 3. The petitioners who are the owners of a plot of land Situate at 8, Rani Laxmi Bai Marg had applied to the Lucknow Development Authority (for short, LDA) for sanction of map in order to build a residential house on the said land. The plan was submitted on November 20, 1982. Various reports were made on tho proposed plan by different Section of the LDA and it was also reported that the land docs not fall within Kaiserbagh Baradari Yojna Ultimately an order passed by the opposite parties on March 26, 1985 that the approved building plan may be issued to the petitioners on their furnishing an affidavit to the effect that in case the land was acquired by the LDA at any time in future, the petitioners would not claim any compensation for the building. It is this order (contained in Annexure 1) which has been challenged in this writ petition and the question which is to be answered in this writ petition is whether the LDA con legally impose a condition, while sanctioning the plan, that a person would not claim compensation in respect of the proposed building if it was acquired in future. 4. An owner of a property has a legal right to claim compensation if the property is compulsorily acquired. This right has been recognised by the Land Acquisition Act as also by other statutes. The condition imposed on the petitioner that the building plan would be issued to him only if he undertakes through an affidavit that he would not claim compensation, has the effect of coercing him to give up his right to claim and receive compensation. This right has been recognised by the Land Acquisition Act as also by other statutes. The condition imposed on the petitioner that the building plan would be issued to him only if he undertakes through an affidavit that he would not claim compensation, has the effect of coercing him to give up his right to claim and receive compensation. There is no provision in the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act or in the allied enactment that a condition impugned in this writ petition can be imposed while sanctioning a building plan. The condition being illegal has to be quashed. Similar view was taken by this Court in Anoop Kumar v. The Meerut Development Authority, Meerut and others, 1984 UPLBEC 606 5. The writ petition is accordingly allowed and the impugned order contained in Annexure 1 in so far it requires the petitioners to give an undertaking through an affidavit that they would not claim compensation if their property was acquired in future is hereby quashed. The remaining part of the order is maintained and the opposite parties are directed to issue the sanctioned plan to the petitioners without requiring them to file an affidavit referred to in the impugned order. Let the mandamus issue accordingly requiring the opposite parties to issue sanctioned plan to the petitioners within two weeks from the date of communication of this order 6. There will be no order as to costs.