JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard Shri R.K. Ojha, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri A.K. Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Pranjal Mehrotra appears for respondent No. 1 and 2, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and Shri Ravindra Kumar Yadav for respondent No. 5. 2. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs: “(a) A writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Gorakhpur Development Authority, Gorakhpur including Administrative Authorities, the District Magistrate, Gorakhpur and the Senior Superintendent of Police, Gorakhpur to provide the petitioner at least 300 Square Meter land, which was allotted subsequently instead of 442.5 Square Meters and also directed to the respondents to give peaceful possession of the said land to the petitioner without any interference to be caused by anybody, except, in accordance with law. (b) An order or direction to the Gorakhpur Development Authority, Gorakhpur to negotiate with third party namely Chandra Bali Yadav or anyone else, if he is claiming for allotment of land and get matter settled, for that petitioner cannot be blamed or compelled to go for relief before any other authority. (c) An order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Gorakhpur Development Authority, Gorakhpur and the District Administration Gorakhpur to give peaceful possession of the plot measuring an area 300 Sq. Meters, which was allotted subsequently to the petitioner in pursuance of the order passed by this Hon’ble Court. (d) An order or direction commanding the Gorakhpur Development Authority, Gorakhpur and other Authorities including any other person not to interfere in peaceful possession of the petitioner over the property allotted by the Gorakhpur Development Authority, Gorakhpur in favour of the petitioner.” 3. As per record, this much is reflected that the Gorakhpur Development Authority, Gorakhpur (GDA) had issued an advertisement for allotment of plots in different areas including Budh Vihar Apartment (Commercial) Scheme, Gorakhpur. The petitioner had applied and deposited a sum of Rs. 1,04,430/- on 12.12.2002. The GDA had allotted Plot No. A-66 area 442.5 sq. mtrs. in Buddha Vihar Commercial Scheme to the petitioner and further the approximate cost of the said plot was estimated by the GDA to a sum of Rs. 10,44,430/-. The petitioner had applied and deposited a sum of Rs. 1,04,430/- on 12.12.2002. The GDA had allotted Plot No. A-66 area 442.5 sq. mtrs. in Buddha Vihar Commercial Scheme to the petitioner and further the approximate cost of the said plot was estimated by the GDA to a sum of Rs. 10,44,430/-. On failure on the part of the petitioner in payment of instalments, the GDA had sent a letter dated 5.12.2005 cancelling the allotment of plot allotted in favour of the petitioner. Thereafter, the said plot in question has been re-allotted to new allottee on 25.11.2005. Aggrieved against the same the petitioner has filed Writ Petition No. 2557 of 2006 in which an interim order was passed on 16.1.2006 staying the cancellation order and to direct the petitioner to continue to deposit as per the terms laid down in the said interim order. Consequently, the GDA had proceeded to file detailed counter-affidavit bringing on record that plot in question was allotted to some one else. The said writ petition was finally decided on 12.5.2009 with following observations : “By means of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for (i) writ of certiorari quashing the cancellation of the allotment of plot No. A 66. Budh Vihar Commercial Yojana.(ii) writ of mandamus directing the respondent No. 1 and 2 to cancel the allotment of the plot No. A.66 Budh Vihar Commercial Yojana, if made to any person and not to gave possession to new allottee and (iii) writ of mandamus directing the respondents to restore the allotment of the petitioner of plot No. A.66 Budh Vihar Commercial Yojana, Gorakhpur. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his plot has been allotted to some one also by the Gorakhpur Development Authority. In order to resolve the controversy, Gorakhpur Development Authority is directed to allot new plot to the petitioner if the plot of the petitioner has been allotted to some other within three months from date of production of a certified copy of this order. The petitioner shall deposit the entire amount at the time of allotment of a new plot and the amount, if any, deposited earlier shall be adjusted at that time.” 4. Consequently, certain objection was raised by the respondents that new allotment will be made on new rate. The petitioner shall deposit the entire amount at the time of allotment of a new plot and the amount, if any, deposited earlier shall be adjusted at that time.” 4. Consequently, certain objection was raised by the respondents that new allotment will be made on new rate. Therefore, the petitioner has filed review application in this regard before the Court and the Court vide order dated 25.3.2011 directed the opposite parties to allot new plot on old rate. In compliance of the direction given by the Court, the GDA had allotted a commercial plot measuring 300 sq. mtrs. in Budh Vihar Part-A Awasiya Yojana and the sale-deed was also executed by GDA in favour of the petitioner on 17.11.2011. Subsequently, the possession of the plot in question was also handed over by the GDA on 27.1.2012. The memo of possession dated 27.1.2012 has also been brought on record by way of Annexure CA-1 to the counter-affidavit. 5. As per record, this much is also reflected that on spot when the petitioner had started raising construction on the east side of his plot, some objection had been raised by the private respondents. In this background, the petitioner had filed Contempt Application (Civil) No. 3342 of 2009 (Gaya Prasad Gupta v. Sri Ram Singh, Vice Chairman, GDA) complaining that GDA had not handed over peaceful and vacant possession of the plot for which the sale-deed has been executed. The said application was disposed of on 21.2.2012 with following observations : “Sri A.K. Dubey, Advocate has filed an affidavit alleging that the Gorakhpur Development Authority, Gorakhpur (GDA) has not handed over peaceful and vacant possession of the plot of which the sale-deed has been executed and is promoting unnecessary interference in the use and occupation of the plot allotted to the applicant. Sri K.R. Singh, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the opposite party has referred to certain documents attached to the affidavit filed today which indicate that the possession certificate has been duly signed by the applicant and as such the GDA has fulfilled its obligation and if there is any interference by the third parties then the GDA is not responsible for the same. The applicant should protect his plot with his own right and might or else he should approach the administration or the Civil Court for appropriate relief. The applicant should protect his plot with his own right and might or else he should approach the administration or the Civil Court for appropriate relief. From a perusal of the affidavit filed today it is apparent that the applicant has not disclosed the name of the persons who are causing interference nor has shown any effort made by him in approaching the administration authorities with regard to his grievance. It would be appropriate for the applicant to first approach the DIG/SSP, Gorakhpur as also the Station House Officer of the concerned Police Station with regard to his grievance and if the same are not attended to, he may approach this Court. List this case after an appropriate application is filed by the applicant after taking the aforesaid steps as observed in this order.” 6. This much is also reflected that respondent No. 5 had instituted a suit for permanent injunction over the property in question against the petitioner being O.S. No. 439 of 2012 (Chandrabali Yadav v. Shri Gaya Prasad Gupta) and the Civil Judge (SD), Gorakhpur vide order dated 8.5.2012 had granted interim injunction directing the parties to maintain status quo. The said order has been brought on record as Annexure SCA-3 by respondent No. 5. 7. In this background Shri R.K. Ojha, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri A.K. Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a bona fide purchaser and once the GDA had proceeded to allot the subsequent plot, then it was incumbent upon the GDA to ensure that the property in question should be free from all encumbrances. 8. On the other hand, Shri Pranjal Mehrotra, learned counsel for GDA has vehemently opposed the writ petition and submits that in response to the directives so issued by this Court in earlier Writ Petition No. 2557 of 2006, the GDA had proceeded to allot to the petitioner the said plot in question. The GDA had also proceeded to execute the sale-deed and consequently had also handed over the possession of the property in question. He has also placed his reliance on the memo of possession in which endorsement of the petitioner was also there. The GDA had also proceeded to execute the sale-deed and consequently had also handed over the possession of the property in question. He has also placed his reliance on the memo of possession in which endorsement of the petitioner was also there. As such it is sought to be contended that once the GDA had proceeded to hand over the plot in question to the petitioner and if some individual grabs the property, the GDA cannot come for rescue and reprieve of the petitioner. He has also placed his reliance to the directives so issued by the contempt Court, wherein direction has also been issued to the petitioner/applicant to approach to DIG/SSP in this regard. 9. Heard rival submissions and perused the record. 10. This is admitted situation that in the present matter the GDA had proceeded to allot the plot in question to the petitioner in the year 2011 and consequently the sale-deed had also been executed by GDA on 17.11.2011. Thereafter, the possession had also been handed over to the petitioner immediately. The memo of possession has also been brought on record, whereby this much is reflected that the petitioner had made an endorsement over the said memo of possession. 11. Once this is the factual situation that in response to the said allotment, the plot in question had been handed over to the petitioner and consequently once the private party has raised certain dispute over the property in question and has also instituted suit thereafter, wherein Civil Judge (SD) vide order dated 8.5.2012 has directed the parties to maintain status quo on spot and once in the said proceeding the petitioner had been arrayed as respondents, then definitely under the present circumstances, we cannot direct the GDA to redress the grievance of the petitioner. Moreover once this is admitted situation that the petitioner had received the possession from the GDA without any protest or objection as he has signed the possession memo after taking possession of the plot in dispute and in case any third party is creating obstruction in the construction over the plot, the GDA cannot be held responsible for the same. Moreover once this is admitted situation that the petitioner had received the possession from the GDA without any protest or objection as he has signed the possession memo after taking possession of the plot in dispute and in case any third party is creating obstruction in the construction over the plot, the GDA cannot be held responsible for the same. We are of the considered opinion that at present the only remedy available to the petitioner is to approach to the Court below and file his objection but so far as this Court is concerned, we cannot come to rescue and reprieve of the petitioner. 12. In view of above, we are not inclined to exercise our discretionary jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition sans merit and is accordingly dismissed.