JUDGMENT : Heard Shri Ram Raj, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Ajay Kumar Singh, learned counsel representing the Lucknow Development Authority. 2. By instituting these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed that the opposite parties may be directed to handover the physical possession of Plot No.B-4/22, Vijayant Khand, Gomti Nagar Scheme, Lucknow and to executed a sale-deed in respect thereof by charging the sale consideration at the rate prevailing on the date of the initial allotment of the said plot, i.e. 21.07.1988. The petitioner has also prayed that the opposite parties may also be directed to pay interest at the rate of Rs.18% on the amount deposited by the petitioner till the date of actual delivery of physical possession of the Plot No.B-4/22, Vijayant Khand, Gomti Nagar Scheme, Lucknow. It has further been prayed that the opposite parties may be directed pay the petitioner the alleged difference of cost of escalation towards the construction of the house including loss of legitimate rent amounting to Rs.30.00 lacs (approximately). A prayer for payment of compensation to the tune of Rs.5.00 lacs has also been made. The petitioner has also prayed that the opposite parties may be directed to pay a sum of Rs.55,000/-towards costs of litigation. 3. The case set up by the petitioner in the writ petition is that he deposited a Bank Draft of Rs.6,000/-through chalan with the opposite parties on 22.02.1988 for allotment of a D-Type House in Sitapur Road Scheme of the respondents. The said chalan form is annexed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition. Thereafter the prayer for Cash-Down Allotment made by the petitioner by making an application on deposition of Bank Draft of Rs.6,000/-was accepted and accordingly the said acceptance was communicated to the petitioner vide Cash-Down Allotment letter dated 21.03.1988, which has been annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition, according to which the petitioner was allotted Plot No.B-2/149/F, Sitapur Road Scheme. The petitioner has asserted in the writ petition that in the month of May, 1988 the Lucknow Development Authority allotted him Plot No.B-6/F, Aliganj Scheme, Lucknow and in respect of the said allotment the petitioner deposited the additional amount of Rs.1,15,000/-on 02.08.1988 by a Bank Draft of the said amount through chalan. The said chalan has been annexed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition. 4. The said chalan has been annexed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition. 4. It has thereafter been asserted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the opposite parties issued a letter dated 21.07.1988 informing him that in lieu of B-6/F, Aliganj Scheme, Lucknow, Plot No.B-4/22, Vijayant Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow has been adjusted in favour of the petitioner. The assertion made in the writ petition is that the said adjustment was made illegally and arbitrarily and without any plausible reason. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that after depositing the entire amount towards the costs of Plot No.B-6/F, Aliganj Scheme, Lucknow, he made a request to the opposite parties to handover the possession of the said plot and also to execute a sale-deed in respect of Plot No.B-4/22, Vijayant Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow. 5. In the light of the aforesaid statements made in the writ petition, a prayer has been made that the opposite parties may be directed to execute the sale-deed in respect of Plot No.B-4/22, Vijayant Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow and to handover the possession of the said plot. 6. The assertions made in the writ petition have categorically been denied by the Lucknow Development Authority and in the counter affidavit filed by the Under Secretary, Lucknow Development Authority, it has been stated that in terms of Cash Down Allotment letter dated 21.03.1988, since the petitioner did not deposit rest of the amount, his allotment in respect of Plot No.B-2/149/F, Sector-F, Sitapur Road Scheme, Lucknow was cancelled and thereafter since he has not been able to give any proof of any allotment or adjustment from Plot No.B-2/149/F, Sitapur Road Scheme to Plot No.B-6/F, Aliganj Scheme, he is not entitled for grant of the prayers made in this writ petition. It has further been averred that the allotment of Plot No.B-6/F, Alignaj Scheme is not available in the record of the Lucknow Development Authority and despite intimation and demand, the petitioner did not produce any evidence to the said effect. It has thus, been stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner is not entitled to either get the physical possession of Plot No.B-4/22, Vijayant Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, neither is he entitled to get the sale-deed executed in respect of the said Plot, namely, Plot No.B-4/22, Vijayant Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow. It has thus, been stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner is not entitled to either get the physical possession of Plot No.B-4/22, Vijayant Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, neither is he entitled to get the sale-deed executed in respect of the said Plot, namely, Plot No.B-4/22, Vijayant Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow. The respondents have further stated in the counter affidavit that the Plot No.B-4/22, Vijayant Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow has been alloted to one Shri Deepak Ratan in whose favour a sale-deed was executed and registered on 04.12.2002 and accordingly he had obtained the possession of the said Plot on 04.12.2002 itself. In view of these averments made in the counter affidavit, it has been asserted by the authorities of the Lucknow Development Authority that the petitioner is not entitled to seek any prayer made in the writ petition. 7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record of the writ petition available before us, we are unable to convince ourselves with the submissions and the prayers made by the learned counsel for the petitioner for the reasons which follow: Vide Cash Down Allotment letter dated 21.03.1998 (Annexure-3 appended to the writ petition), the petitioner’s request which was made by depositing the Bank Draft of Rs.6,000/-on 22.02.1988 for allotment of D-Type House in Sitapur Scheme, Lucknow was accepted and accordingly he was intimated by the said letter dated 21.03.1988 that he had been allotted on Cash-Down Payment basis a B-Type Plot, namely, Plot No.B-2/149/F in Sitapur Road Scheme, Lucknow. The estimated property cost as intimated to the petitioner vide letter dated 21.03.1988 was Rs.82,500/-and accordingly, after adjusting the registration amount of Rs.6,000/-he was required to deposit rest of the sum of Rs.76,500/-. It was also intimated to the petitioner that rest of the amount of Rs.76,500/-was to be deposited by him before 29.05.1988. 8. The Cash Down Allotment letter dated 21.03.1988 which is in respect of Plot No.B-2/149/F, Sitapur Road Scheme, Lucknow is the only the allotment letter which the petitioner has been able to produce before this Court. There is nothing on record which establishes that the petitioner ever deposited the rest of the amount of Rs.76,500/-in respect of Plot No.B-2/149/F, Sitapur Road Scheme, Lucknow which he was required to deposit before 29.05.1988. There is nothing on record which establishes that the petitioner ever deposited the rest of the amount of Rs.76,500/-in respect of Plot No.B-2/149/F, Sitapur Road Scheme, Lucknow which he was required to deposit before 29.05.1988. It is in this factual background that the Lucknow Development Authority in its counter affidavit has categorically stated in para 7 thereof that the petitioner had deposited only a sum of Rs.6,000/-as registration fee but he did not deposit the remaining amount of Rs.76,500/-by 29.05.1988 which was the last date for deposit of the remaining amount and, therefore, the allotment in respect of this plot was cancelled. 9. After expiry of the last date for depositing the amount of Rs.76,500/-in respect of Plot No.B-2/149/F, Sitapur Road Scheme, Lucknow i.e. after 29.05.1988 the petitioner appears to have deposited a sum of Rs.1,15,000/- by Bank Draft of the said amount through a bank chalan dated 02.08.1988 which has been annexed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition. The said chalan form discloses that the amount of Rs.1,15,000/-was deposited by the petitioner in respect of Plot No.B-6/F, Aliganj Scheme of the Lucknow Development Authority, however, what is noticeable is that in respect of Plot No.B-6/F, Aliganj Scheme, Lucknow the petitioner has utterly failed to produce any letter or order of allotment. The petitioner has also not been able to show or establish as to under which allotment letter or under which order the petitioner had deposited the sum of Rs.1,15,000/-on 02.08.1988 against Plot No.B-6/F. There is nothing on record which shows that the petitioner was ever allotted Plot No.B-6/F, Aliganj Scheme, Lucknow and as such mere deposition of the aforesaid amount of Rs.1,15,000/-will, in our considered opinion, not confer any right on the petitioner to claim the possession or execution of the sale-deed in respect of Plot No.B-6/F. We may also, at this juncture, refer to a letter dated 28.07.2009, issued by the Joint Secretary of the Lucknow Development Authority to the petitioner requiring him to be present in his office on 04.08.2009 along with (i) Original Allotment letter in respect of Plot No.B-6/F, Aliganj Scheme, (ii) the original receipt of the amount deposited in respect of the said Plot i.e. Plot No.B-6/F, Aliganj Scheme and (iii) the original letter in respect of adjustment made to Plot No.B-4/22, Vijayant Khand, Gomti Nagar in lieu of Plot No.B-6/F, Aliganj Scheme. The said letter dated 28.07.2009 is on record as Annexure-8 to the writ petition. 10. The petitioner appears to have submitted a reply to the said letter dated 28.07.2009 on 13.08.2010, which has been annexed as Annexure-9 to the writ petition. In the said reply, no document in relation to allotment or adjustment letter or order in respect of Plot No.B-6/F has been annexed. It has simply been stated by the petitioner that he was initially allotted Plot No.B-2/149/F, Sitapur Road Scheme, Lucknow and that he had deposited the rest of the amount in respect of the aforesaid Plot and that without any prior information the petitioner was allotted Plot No.B-6/F, Aliganj Scheme whereafter the petitioner submitted the amount of Rs.1,15,000/-, however, the petitioner has not yet been given the possession of the said Plot No.B-6/F, Aliganj Scheme, neither a sale-deed has been executed in respect thereof. In the reply, the petitioner had further stated that the petitioner’s allotment was adjusted to Plot No.B-4/22, Vijayant Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow in lieu of Plot No.B-6/F, Aliganj Scheme on 21.07.1988, however, the petitioner has not been given possession of Plot No.B-4/22, Vijayant Khand, Gomti Nagar, though he has deposited the entire amount earlier. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the letter dated 21.07.1988, which has been annexed as Annexure1 to the writ petition, according to which the allotment of the petitioner was adjusted to Plot No.B-4/22, Vijayant Khand, Gomti Nagar in lieu of Plot No.B-6/F, Aliganj Scheme, however, in para 11 of the writ petition it has been stated that the said alleged adjustment was made by the respondents in an illegal and arbitrary manner without any plausible reason. The alleged adjustment letter dated 21.07.1988 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) states that the said adjustment was made on some undated application given by the petitioner, whereas the petitioner has stated that the said adjustment was made illegally and without any plausible reason. Moreover, what is noticeable is that the petitioner might have been eligible or entitle for his adjustment of Plot No.B-4/22, Vijayant Khand, Gomti Nagar only in case the Plot No.B-6/F, Aliganj Scheme was ever either alloted to him or it was adjusted in lieu of the original allotment made in favour of the petitioner vide Cash Down Allotment letter dated 21.03.1988 in respect of Plot No.B-2/149/F, Sitapur Road Scheme. Despite demand by the Lucknow Development Authority vide letter dated 28.07.2009, the petitioner has completely failed to give any proof to the Lucknow Development Authority in respect of the allotment/adjustment letter for Plot No.B-6/F, Aliganj Scheme . Along with the writ petition also, no such document has been annexed which reveals that the petitioner was ever allotted Plot No.B-6/F, Aliganj Scheme and hence in absence of any allotment made in favour of the petitioner in respect of Plot No.B-6/F, Aliganj Scheme, the question of any adjustment of his allotment to Plot No.B-4/22, Vijayant Khand, Gomti Nagar does not arise at all. The alleged adjustment by the Lucknow Development in favour of the petitioner in respect of Plot No.B-4/22, Vijayant Khand, Gomti Nagar was issued on 21.07.1988 whereas the petitioner appears to have deposited a sum of Rs.1,15,000/-by Bank Draft through a bank chalan in respect of Plot No.B-6/F, Aliganj Scheme. If it is presumed that adjustment in favour of the petitioner was made to Plot No.B-4/22, Vijayant Khand, Gomti Nagar, then it is beyond comprehension as to how the sum of Rs.1,15,000/-was deposited thereof through bank chalan after the said date i.e. on 02.08.1988. As already observed, the said amount of Rs.1,15,000/- was deposited by the petitioner in respect of Plot No.B-6/F, Aliganj Scheme. 12. However, as observed above, the petitioner has utterly failed to establish that the said Plot No.B-6/F, Aliganj was ever allotted to him. The petitioner has not annexed any document even for the namesake which in any manner suggests that Plot No.B-6/F, Aliganj Scheme was ever allotted to him. 13. In these circumstances mere deposit of the sum of Rs.1,15,000/-on 02.08.1988 in respect of Plot No.B-6/F, Aliganj Scheme will not confer any right whatsoever upon the petitioner to claim any right over the said plot. We may also observe that in absence of any allotment made in favour of the petitioner in respect of Plot No.B-6/F, Aliganj Scheme, his alleged adjustment to Plot No.B-4/22, Vijayant Khand, Gomti Nagar also does not have any bearing so far as the petitioner’s claim in respect of Plot No.B-4/22, Vijayant Khand, Gomti Nagar is concerned. We may also observe that in absence of any allotment made in favour of the petitioner in respect of Plot No.B-6/F, Aliganj Scheme, his alleged adjustment to Plot No.B-4/22, Vijayant Khand, Gomti Nagar also does not have any bearing so far as the petitioner’s claim in respect of Plot No.B-4/22, Vijayant Khand, Gomti Nagar is concerned. The petitioner in the writ petition has stated that he initially deposited registration amount of Rs.6,000/-whereupon he was allotted a plot in Sitapur Road Scheme, namely, Plot No.B-2/149/F, Sitapur Road Scheme and thereafter he deposited a sum of Rs.1,15,000/-, that too, against Plot No.B-6/F, Aliganj Scheme even in absence of any such allotment made in favour of said Plot in Aliganj Scheme. The petitioner no where has stated that he ever deposited the remaining amount of Rs.76,500/-as was required of him by the Cash Down Allotment letter dated 21.03.1988 in respect of Plot No.B-2/149/F. The petitioner was required to deposit the remaining amount in terms of the said allotment letter dated 21.03.1988 before 29.05.1988. There is nothing on record to suggest that the petitioner deposited the remaining amount; rather it has been averred by the petitioner that he deposited, on 02.08.1988, a sum of Rs.1,15,000/- not towards Plot No.B-2/149/F, Sitapur Road Scheme but in respect of B-6/F, Aliganj Scheme, that too, without any allotment order or letter in respect of plot in Aliganj Scheme or without there being any demand of any amount by the Lucknow Development Authority in respect thereof. 14. The facts of the case as discussed above and also as culled out from the pleadings of the respective parties available on record lead to the only indefeasible conclusion that the petitioner was never allotted to Plot No.B-6/F, Aliganj, Lucknow and hence no right can be said to have accrued to the petitioner on the basis of alleged adjustment letter dated 21.07.1988 whereby the petitioner’s allotment was allegedly adjusted from Plot No.B-6/F, Aliganj Scheme to Plot No.B-4/22, Vijayant Khand, Gomti Nagar. The question of adjustment to Plot No.B-4/22, Vijayant Khand, Gomti Nagar would have arisen only in case the petitioner was able to establish that he was ever allotted Plot No.B-6/F in Aliganj Scheme. 15. The writ petition is thus, highly misconceived and hence merits rejection. Learned counsel for the petitioner has cited various judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court and also rendered by this Court in support of his case. 15. The writ petition is thus, highly misconceived and hence merits rejection. Learned counsel for the petitioner has cited various judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court and also rendered by this Court in support of his case. The judgments cited at bar by the learned counsel for the petitioner are; (i) [1994 Supp (3) SCC 494], Delhi Development Authority vs. Pushpendra Kumar Jain (ii) [ AIR 2004 SC 400 ], Kanpur Development Authority vs. Smt. Sheela Devi and others (iii) [ (2011) 6 SCC 714 ], Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board and another vs. Prakash Dal Mill and others, (iv) [2011 (29) LCD 2541], Ganesh Prasad vs. Lucknow Development Authority and others and (v) a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court dated 09.12.2013 rendered in the case of Amar Kumar vs. State of U.P. and others, Misc. Bench No.4413 of 2011. 16. In respect of the judgments in the case of Delhi Development Authority (supra), Kanpur Development Authority (supra) and Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board and another (supra), we may only observe that these matters related to enhancement of initial estimated costs of the property developed by the agency concerned. In the aforesaid judgments Hon’ble Supreme Court has broadly held that as to whether escalation costs is permissible or not is to be decided in the facts and circumstances of a particular case and in the light of the scheme floated by the agency concerned. The said judgments have been relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner to assert that more draw of lots may not confer any right, however, the allotment letter does, however, confer a right in favour of the allottee which cannot be curtailed or taken away by the agency concerned. 17. So far as the aforesaid assertion of the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, it is observed that there is no quarrel as to the principles laid down in these judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the aforesaid cases, however, for asserting his right, the petitioner has to show a lawful allotment in his favour. In our discussions made in the preceding paragraphs, we, without hesitation or doubt, have held that the petitioner has utterly failed to establish that Plot No.B-6/F, Aliganj Scheme was ever allotted to him and as such the alleged adjustment of his allotment to Plot No.B-4/22, Vijayant Khand, Gomti Nagar is also legally not acceptable. So far as the initial allotment made in respect of Plot No.B-2/149/F, Sitapur Road Scheme is concerned, there is nothing on record that the petitioner ever deposited the remaining amount of Rs.76,500/-by 29.05.1988 in terms of the allotment letter dated 21.03.1988. Thus, the petitioner in this case has not been able to establish any right in respect of all the three plots, namely, (i) Plot No.B-2/149/F, Sitapur Road Scheme, (ii) Plot No.B-6/F, Aliganj Scheme and (iii) Plot No.B-4/22, Vijayant Khand, Gomti Nagar Scheme. 18. As regards the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Ganesh Prasad and Amar Kumar (supra), we observe that the grievance of the petitioners in the aforesaid cases was that even after depositing the entire cost of plots alloted to them, the sale deed was not executed, neither possession of the plots were delivered to them. In respect of the law laid down by the coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Ganesh Prasad and Amar Kumar (supra), there cannot be any dispute, however, the instant case is distinguishable on facts, as we have already found above that (a) in respect of Plot No.B-2/149/F, Sitapur Road Scheme, the petitioner did not deposit the remaining amount of Rs.76,500/-within the time stipulated for the said purpose, (b) in respect of Plot No.B-6/F, Aliganj Scheme, the petitioner has utterly failed to show or establish any allotment order or letter and (c) in respect of Plot No.B-4/22, Vijayant Khand, Gomti Nagar, we have already arrived at a conclusion that the said adjustment was absolutely unlawful and does not confer any right upon the petitioner for the reason that the petitioner had not been able to establish that he was ever allotted Plot No.B-6/F, Aliganj Scheme which is said to have been adjusted with Plot No.B-4/22, Vijayant Khand, Gomti Nagar. In fact, in absence of any allotment letter or order in respect of Plot No.B-6/F, Aliganj Scheme, the question of any adjustment of the allotment of the said plot in Aliganj Scheme the Plot No.B-4/22, Vijayant Khand, Gomti Nagar did not arise at all. 19. For the discussions made and reasons given above, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 20. Resultantly, the writ petition is dismissed. 21. We, however, direct that the amount of Rs.6,000/-and Rs.1,15,000/-, which are said to have been deposited by the petitioner vide bank chalans, which have been annexed as Annexures 2 and 3 respectively to this writ petition, shall be refunded to the petitioner along with interest @ 8% per annum. Before taking decision for refunding these amounts, the Lucknow Development Authority will verify as to whether the aforesaid amounts of Rs.6,000/-and Rs.1,15,000/-were actually deposited in the accounts of Lucknow Development Authority. This exercise and refund, if any, to the petitioner shall be made within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is furnished to the office of Chairman or the Secretary of Lucknow Development Authority. 22. Before parting with the case, we find it appropriate to observe that the manner in which the officers and authorities of the Lucknow Development Authority have conducted themselves in this case, cannot be appreciated. The stand of the Lucknow Development Authority is that the allotment of Plot No.B-6/F, Aliganj Scheme is not available in their records and thus in the background of this fact, how the alleged adjustment letter dated 21.07.1988 was issued remains unexplained by the Lucknow Development Authority. In absence of allotment of Plot No.B-6/F, Aliganj Scheme, how his allotment was adjusted from the said plot in Aliganj Scheme to Plot No.B-4/22, Vijayant Khand, Gomti Nagar remains a mystery. The facts of this case compel us to observe that the officers of the Lucknow Development Authority and the administration thereof need to introspect themselves and take such measures which will improve its working so that the Development Authority is able to discharge its statutory functions entrusted to it by the State Legislature by enacting U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973. We hope and expect that the top administration of Lucknow Development Authority shall take appropriate steps to improve its functioning. 23. There will be no order as to costs.