Judgment : Sangeeta Chandra,J. This judgment has been divided into the following Sections tofacilitate analysis: A. The Challenge Para 1 B. Rival Submissions Para 2 to 31 C. Examination of pleadings by the Court Para 32 to 68 D. Statutory Provisions Para 69 to 74 E. Governing Principles Para 75 F. Analysis of Petitioner’s Claim Para 76 – 78 G. Case laws on the Subject Para 79 H. Fraud through Misrepresentation and Concealment Para 80 – 85 I. Conclusion Para 86- 90 A- The Challenge 1. Petitioner has prayed for quashing of order dated 30.04.2024 passed by the Chairman Lucknow Development Authority (hereinafter referred as L.D.A.) in relation to plot no. 1/205, and has also prays for a writ in the nature of mandamus, commanding the respondent not to allot plot no. 1/205, Vineet Khand belonging to the petitioner to anyone else. B- Rival Submissions 2. The case of the petitioner as has been put by Sri Anshuman Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner is that his father Kaushal Kishore Shukla had earlier filed Writ Petition No.8426 (M/B) of 2009 in relation to House No.A-1/205, Vineet Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow challenging the order dated 12.08.2009 passed by the Lucknow Development Authority. The said writ petition was dismissed for want of prosecution on 07.03.2024. The petitioner has filed a recall application on 11.03.2024, which is pending for consideration, in which counsel for private respondent got an adjournment on 26.04.2024. It is also stated that Writ Petition No.1970 (M/B) of 2001 was filed by the father of private respondent, Sri V.D. Keshari against the Lucknow Development Authority and this writ petition was clubbed with Writ Petition No.8426 (M/B) of 2009 and was decided by this Court vide order dated 07.03.2024 directing the Lucknow Development Authority to consider the representation of Vimal Chand Keshari, who had been substituted on account of death of his father V. D. Keshari, who died in the meantime. 3. It is also the case of the petitioner that his father Kaushal Kishore Shukla was an ex-Army person and one plot of land in Gram Sabha, Khargapur Husariya admeasuring 8 Biswas was given to him by the Gram Pradhan by executing 2 pattas on 21.12.1973 and 02.09.1981 respectively. 3. It is also the case of the petitioner that his father Kaushal Kishore Shukla was an ex-Army person and one plot of land in Gram Sabha, Khargapur Husariya admeasuring 8 Biswas was given to him by the Gram Pradhan by executing 2 pattas on 21.12.1973 and 02.09.1981 respectively. The plot in question i.e. 1/205, Vineet Khand, Gomti Nagar has been developed after the Lucknow Development Authority (hereinafter referred as L.D.A.) has taken over the Gram Sabha land of Village Khargapur Husariya. It has been stated that petitioner's father Late Kaushal Kishore Shukla constructed a house for his family, which was numbered as House No.54 of Village Husariya and the name of the family members of Late Kaushal Kishore Shukla were shown in Pariwar Register of Gram Sabha, Khargapur Husariya. The Gram Sabha had passed a resolution in favour of Late Kaushal Kishore Shukla as he, being a Havaldar in Indian Army, had fought in the Indo- Pakistan War in the year 1971 and had been awarded a Special Service Medal with clasp while serving in Indian Peace Keeping Force in Sri Lanka. It has been stated in the writ petition that the house constructed by the father of the petitioner was assessed by the Nagar Mahapalika in the year 1992 and the Nagar Nigam gave it as House No. 1/205, Vineet Khand, Gomti Nagar. The Nagar Nigam is collecting the house tax from the father of the petitioner since 2002. 4. It is stated in the writ petition that under Section 198(4) of the U.P.Z.A.L.R. Act only the Collector is empowered to cancel a patta if any irregularities is found therein and such patta can only be cancelled after issuing a show cause notice and the limitation for cancellation of such patta is five years. However, no such show cause notice was ever issued by the Collector to the father of the petitioner since the inception of the two pattas dated 21.12.1973 and 02.09.1981. It has further been stated that the requirement of approval of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate was added only in the year 1975 and before 1975, the prior approval for grant of patta by Gram Sabha was not required. The Lucknow Development Authority has got no statutory authority to cancel or ignore the pattas granted by the Gram Sabha in violation of Sections 198(4), (5) and (6) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. The Lucknow Development Authority has got no statutory authority to cancel or ignore the pattas granted by the Gram Sabha in violation of Sections 198(4), (5) and (6) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. It has also been stated that although the petitioner has been threatened to be thrown out from his plot, other similarly situated nine persons/patta holders were adjusted by providing them housing sites over their patta land. 5. It has also been stated that the petitioner and his family have been in continuous possession over Plot No.1/205, Vineet Khand, Gomti Nagar for the past 51 years as his father had constructed the house over the said plot of land of Khasra No.88 of Village Khargapur Husariya. Further submission has been made that V.D. Keshari, father of private respondent, had applied for a Lower Income Group house in Tikait Rai Housing Scheme of Lucknow Development Authority, but surprisingly his allotment was shifted to Gomti Nagar Scheme against the Rules and he was given 5,810 Sq. Ft. of land in the posh area of Gomti Nagar and besides this, his wife Smt. Kamla Keshari was also allotted Plot No.A-3/272, Vishwas Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow. It is stated that both the spouses could not have been allotted a house or plot in the same city by the Lucknow Development Authority as it is against the Rules. 6. It has also been stated that on query being made by the father of the petitioner from the Lucknow Development Authority with regard to illegal allotment to the father of private respondent, it has been informed that application of V.D. Keshari is undated and was accepted sometimes in 1988, whereas allotment of developed plots in Vineet Khand itself had been started only in the year 1989. It has been submitted that it is not clear as to how in the year 1988 one A Type plot of 5810 Sq. Ft. was allotted to V.D.Keshari. 7. It has also been stated that a Resolution was passed by the Lucknow Development Authority in its Board meeting held on 27.11.1998 that patta holders of earlier Gram Sabha land would be adjusted against their plots after taking Development charges. This resolution was never acted upon in relation to the petitioner, but other patta holders were adjusted. 8. 7. It has also been stated that a Resolution was passed by the Lucknow Development Authority in its Board meeting held on 27.11.1998 that patta holders of earlier Gram Sabha land would be adjusted against their plots after taking Development charges. This resolution was never acted upon in relation to the petitioner, but other patta holders were adjusted. 8. It has also been stated in the writ petition that the order impugned states that House No. A-1/205, Vineet Khand, Gomti Nagar is not situated over Khasra No.88, but it is situated over Khasra No.55, whereas no survey was done to find out on which Khasra Plot Number House No. A-1/205 Vineet Khand, Gomti Nagar is situated. The Public Information Officer’s comments and the report of the Lucknow Development Authority submitted before the Grievance Redressal Committee of Vidhan Sabha has been filed as Annexure-21 to the writ petition. 9. Initially, when the writ petition was filed, counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the Lucknow Development Authority were heard and notices were issued to private respondent and the Court had observed that till the next date of listing the petitioner shall not be evicted from the house and no demolition of the house shall be carried out. The petitioner was also restrained from raising any new constructions or creating any third party rights on the plot in dispute. 10. Later on, an application for recall of such order was filed by the counsel for private respondent, namely, C.M. Application No.2 of 2024, wherein it was stated that in pursuance of allotment made by the Lucknow Development Authority to the father of OP. no. 4, the entire sale consideration was deposited in the year 1999. The Court after going through the affidavit filed in support of the Application for Recall, modified its order dated 07.05.2024 to the extent that house of the father of petitioner, which was said to be constructed only upon 645 Sq. Ft. of land and the appurtenant land thereto admeasuring only 2 Biswa as alleged to have been granted by way of patta in 1973 by the Gram Sabha concerned, should not be disturbed. The rest of the land, which is in dispute, was directed to be demarcated and handed over to the allottee, who had already paid the entire sale consideration to the Lucknow Development Authority. The rest of the land, which is in dispute, was directed to be demarcated and handed over to the allottee, who had already paid the entire sale consideration to the Lucknow Development Authority. The Court also directed the listing of the writ petition along with the records of Writ Petition No.8426 (M/B) of 2009, Kaushal Kishore Shukla Vs. Lucknow Development Authority and others, and Writ Petition No.1970 (M/B) of 2001, V.D. Keshari Vs. Lucknow Development Authority and others, and Writ Petititon No. 1701 (M/B) of 1998, Kaushal Kishore Shukla Vs. Lucknow Development Authority and others, decided on 11.06.1998. 11. In the application for Recall of interim order dated 07.05.2024 filed by private respondent, Vimal Chand Keshari, it was stated that the entire writ petition had misleading averments and the interim order dated 07.05.2024 had been obtained on the basis of misrepresentation and concealment. Though, the lease in favour of the petitioner’s father is said to have been made initially on 15.12.1973 by a Resolution passed by the Gaon Sabha actual allotment in Prescribed Form 5 had not been filed along with the petition. Also, Kaushal Kishore Shukla had retired in 1990. Having been in active service as havaldar/clerk in the Indian Army, he could not be said to be belonging to reserved category or landless or living Below Poverty Line. Also, allotment of housing site could not have been made to him a second time in 1981 as alleged in the petition. The L.D.A. had acquired the land somewhere in the year 1980, and the land vested initially in the State Government and thereafter in the L.D.A. It allotted plot no. 1/205, Vineet Khand in favour of the father of the private respondent. 12. It was also stated that it seems that after such acquisition of land in Vineet Khand, late Kaushal Kishore Shukla had got prepared documents in 1981, and he claimed Two Pattas, to have been given to him, one of which was of 2 Biswa and the other of 6 Biswa. Currently, the petitioner was in possession of almost 7000 ft.² of land. However Resolution which the petitioner is alleging to have been passed by the Gram Sabha in 1973 was only for 2 Biswa of land which comes to around 2600 ft.². Kaushal Kishore Shukla has encroached on much more land than was allegedly allotted in his favour. Currently, the petitioner was in possession of almost 7000 ft.² of land. However Resolution which the petitioner is alleging to have been passed by the Gram Sabha in 1973 was only for 2 Biswa of land which comes to around 2600 ft.². Kaushal Kishore Shukla has encroached on much more land than was allegedly allotted in his favour. The Gaon Sabha Husariya has also not been impleaded as respondent in the petition otherwise facts regarding alleged allotment of Housing Patta in favour of the petitioner’s father would have been verified. Such land on which the petitioner’s house is built is situated on the main road in front of Jaipuria school and the construction of the petitioner is only 645.50 ft.² The father of private respondent was a retired judicial officer who was allotted 540 m² of land Plot No. 1/205 which comes to around 5810ft.² 13. It was stated by the private respondent that while filing the petition, the petitioner has resorted to concealment as he had not given reference of Writ Petition No. 1701 M/ B of 1998, which Kaushal Kishore Shukla had filed. He has also not given reference of Regular Suit no. 233 of 1995, which had been filed by Kaushal Kishore Shukla against L.D.A. in which application for Interim Injunction was rejected by the Court of Munsif Havali on 31.03.1998. The father of the petitioner had also filed Writ Petition No. 1701 (M/B) of 1998, which was disposed of by this court on the first date . True copies of the order dated 25.04.1995 and of order dated 31.03.1998 passed by Munsif Havali Lucknow in Civil Suit no. 233 of 1995 have been filed as Annexures to such application for Recall. 14. Sri Sharad Pathak, learned counsel for private respondent has pointed out the plaint of Regular Suit No.233 of 1995, which has been filed as Annexure to his Counter Affidavit, and has stated that in paragraph-1 of such plaint, the petitioner’s father had stated that Khasra No.88(Min.) admeasuring 8 Biswa in Village Khargapur Husariya was allotted to him in 1973 by the Gram Sabha Khargapur Husariya as housing site and the plaintiff- Kaushal Kishore Shukla was given the possession in 1973 by the Gram Panchayat and he built his house in 1980 over the said housing site. A boundary wall was also constructed. A boundary wall was also constructed. It was also stated that in the plaint the plaintiff - Kaushal Kishore Shukla had planted 40 Eucalyptus Trees, 8 Mango Trees, 3 Guava Trees, 10 Poplar Trees and 10 other trees in the open land surrounding his house. On the northern side of the plot, the boundary is mentioned as Sadak Sarkari. An allegation was made against in the plaintiff that the defendant-Lucknow Development Authority that they had tried to interfere in the possession of the plaintiff on various dates and an attempt was made to demolish the house and the boundary wall of the disputed house/property situated in Khasra No.88, Village Husariya 15. Further, it has been pointed out by Sri Sharad Pathak from the Writ Petition No. 1701 (M/ B) of 98 that was filed earlier by the petitioner's father in 1998, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure to the Counter Affidavit that, in the said writ petition, father of the petitioner had stated that the respondents were threatening to demolish his house in Village Husariya, Post Malesemau, Lucknow, now also known as Vineet Khand-I, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow and that he had constructed a house on the plot of land Khasra No. 88 admeasuring 6 Biswas on 02.09.1981, after getting permission and patta from the Gram Sabha Khargapur Husariya, Lucknow. The then Pradhan of the Gram Sabha had given patta on 02.09.1981. It has been stated in the Counter Affidavit of the private respondent that there is no mention in the said writ petition of alleged earlier patta granted in 1973 of 2 Bigha land for housing purposes. The said Writ Petition No. 1701 (M/B) 1998 was disposed of on the first day itself by this Court by observing that counsel for the Lucknow Development Authority had stated that the Lucknow Development Authority would act only in accordance with law. 16. The said Writ Petition No. 1701 (M/B) 1998 was disposed of on the first day itself by this Court by observing that counsel for the Lucknow Development Authority had stated that the Lucknow Development Authority would act only in accordance with law. 16. It has been submitted by the counsel for the private Respondent that later Writ Petition No. 8426 (M/B) 2009 was filled praying for a writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing Annexure-1, which is a letter dated 12.08.2009 issued by the Under Secretary, Lucknow Development Authority indicating that an earlier letter had been issued on 12.11.2008 wherein it has been stated that Plot No.A-1/205 Vineet Khand, Gomti Nagar may be taken from him and it its place, father of the petitioner may be adjusted by giving a plot to him in Gomti Nagar Vistar Yojana at current rate of Rs.112.50 per Sq. Mtr. However, the father of the petitioner had not given any consent for such adjustment. Father of the petitioner was informed that registry has to be executed in favour of the allottee of plot in Vineet Khand, Gomti Nagar, in case no consent is given by Kaushal Kishore Shukla, then demolition of the petitioner's encroachment would be undertaken soon. A prayer was made in this Writ Petition No. 8426(M/B) 2009 for issuance of a Mandamus to regularize the occupancy of House No.1-205 Vineet Khand, Gomti Nagar in favour of the father of the petitioner after taking requisite Development Charges. A prayer was further made for quashing the allotment order made in favour of opposite party no.2 V. D. Keshari i.e. father of private respondent. 17. A prayer was further made for quashing the allotment order made in favour of opposite party no.2 V. D. Keshari i.e. father of private respondent. 17. Since Writ Petition No.8426 (M/B) of 2009 was listed along with writ petition filed by V.D. Keshari, namely, Writ Petition No.1970 (M/B) of 2001 and no counsel appeared to press this petition, while the writ petition filed by the petitioner's father was dismissed for want of prosecution, writ petition filed by the father of private respondent Late V.D. Keshari (Substituted by Vimal Chand Keshari) was disposed of with the observation that in case a representation is moved by him to the Vice- Chairman/Secretary, Lucknow Development Authority raising his grievance and annexing therewith all documents in support of his claim, the same shall be considered and a decision will be taken in accordance with law by a reasoned and speaking order, within four weeks from the date a certified copy of the order dated07.03.2024 was produced before the Vice Chairman. 18. Writ Petition No.1970 (M/B) of 2001 filed by V.D. Keshari, father of private respondent was only for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding opposite parties to perform its legal obligations by executing and registering the deed of conveyance in respect of Plot No.A-1/205, Vineet Khand, Gomti Nagar and to deliver its vacant possession to the allottee after removal of encroachments thereon. 19. Sri Sharadh Pathak, learned counsel for private respondent while arguing the matter on merits has submitted further that the petitioner in his writ petition has stated that the house was constructed by his father on Khasra No.88. However, a survey was done by a joint team of revenue officials and the officials of the Lucknow Development Authority and it was found that house of the father of the petitioner had actually been constructed over Khasra No.55, which land had already been acquired by notification issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the U.P. Land Acquisition Act and the compensation has been paid to the recorded tenure holders. It has also been argued that petitioner concealed the report of the Consolidation Officer dated 27.04.2024, wherein it was apparent that the land upon which the petitioner’s father had constructed the house was on Khasra No.55 and not on Khasra No.88. It has also been argued that petitioner concealed the report of the Consolidation Officer dated 27.04.2024, wherein it was apparent that the land upon which the petitioner’s father had constructed the house was on Khasra No.55 and not on Khasra No.88. Actually, a major portion of Khasra No.88 is lying vacant, upon which illegal encroachments had been made by some other villagers. It has been argued that it appears that when the Colony was being developed, the father of the petitioner moved towards the main road by leaving the land on which he was claiming to be allotted a housing patta. It has also been submitted that patta that has been relied upon and stated to have been issued in favour of Kaushal Kishore Shukla, is apparently not a genuine housing site allotment as the father of the petitioner was working as Havaldar in the Army and was not Below Poverty Line and he belonged to General Category, therefore, he was not falling within any of the categories as provided under Section 198(F) of the U.P.Z.A.L.R. Act for preferential allotment. 20. It has also been submitted that petitioner's father had initially claimed that patta had been given to him by the Gram Sabha on 15.12.1973 for 2 Biswa of land and then again in 1981 for 6 Biswa of land i.e. total 8 Biswa land is alleged to have been allotted. The 1981 patta is apparently in violation of the amended provisions of the U.P.Z.A.L.R. Act, which requires prior permission of the Assistant Collector in-charge of Sub Division for grant of patta. Also, by that time the father of the petitioner was not landless and not Below Poverty Line. 21. Sri Ratnesh Chandra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Lucknow Development Authority has pointed out from the Counter Affidavit filed on behalf of L.D.A. on 26.03.2025 praying for dismissal of the petition that plot no. 1/205 Vineet Khand, Gomti Nagar was allotted in favour of V.D. Keshari on 18.07.1988 in pursuance of Cash Down Payment policy. 21. Sri Ratnesh Chandra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Lucknow Development Authority has pointed out from the Counter Affidavit filed on behalf of L.D.A. on 26.03.2025 praying for dismissal of the petition that plot no. 1/205 Vineet Khand, Gomti Nagar was allotted in favour of V.D. Keshari on 18.07.1988 in pursuance of Cash Down Payment policy. Since, there was unauthorised construction and possession over the said plot, so he could not be delivered the possession of such plot and he preferred Writ Petition No. 1970 (M/B) of 2001 before this Court, which was finally decided by this Court by order dated 07.03.2024, directing the substituted petitioner Vimal Chand Keshari to file a fresh representation before the Chairman/Secretary Lucknow Development Authority, and such representation would be considered and decided in accordance with law by reasoned and speaking order. 22. In compliance of such order dated 07.03.2024 Vimal Chand Keshari had preferred representation on 11.03.2024 in pursuance of which hearing took place on 22.04.2024. Vimal Chand Keshari, son of V.D. Keshari and Rakesh Kumar Shukla, son of Kaushal Kishore Shukla were present and made their detailed submissions. The records relating to the case were also perused and thereafter a reasoned and speaking order has been passed, which has been challenged in the petition. 23. It has also been stated in paragraph 8 of such Counter Affidavit filed by L.D.A. that earlier also the Vice Chairman by his order dated 05.05.1998 had directed that possession of plot no. 1/205 to be delivered to V.D. Keshari and Kaushal Kishore Shukla be allotted some other plot on the prevailing rates in some other Yojna. Kaushal Kishore Shukla submitted various applications before different authorities for getting executed sale deed in respect of plot no. 1/205 Vineet Khand,Gomti Nagar. He did not give consent for allotment of another plot in another Scheme at prevailing rates, and the earlier order dated 05.05.1998 stood automatically cancelled. 24. Also, in the said Counter Affidavit of the Lucknow Development Authority, genuineness of the alleged Housing patta allotment made in 1973 and 1981 of 8 Biswa of land in khasra no. 88 village has been strongly disputed. Such Patta was not allotted in accordance with the provisions of the U.P.Z.A.L.R. Act and could not be treated to be a valid document. 88 village has been strongly disputed. Such Patta was not allotted in accordance with the provisions of the U.P.Z.A.L.R. Act and could not be treated to be a valid document. Even otherwise the land on which the petitioners father had constructed his house has been identified as Khasra No.55, for which payment of compensation has been made to the recorded tenure holders on completion of acquisition thereof. At no point of time, the L.D.A. had admitted that the house was situated over Khasra No.88, only the submission of the father of the petitioner was recorded in various orders that his house was situated over Khasra No. 88. However, after due survey, it has been found that the plot in question 1/205,Vineet Khand, Gomti Nagar is falling over Khasra No. 55 and not Khasra no. 88. Copy of Survey done through Electronic Total Station method on 23.04.2024, by the Tehsildar, the Revenue Inspector, the Area lekhpal, and the Surveyor has been filed as annexure CA 6 to the Counter Affidavit. 25. Sri Ratnesh Chandra, learned counsel for the Lucknow Development Authority has pointed out Annexure-CA-6 of Counter Affidavit filed by private respondent, which is a report of the joint team of the revenue officials and the officials of the Lucknow Development Authority along with a private company namely M/s P.C.S. Management Consultancy Private Limited, which was engaged to find out the location of Plot No.88 and Plot No.55 of Village Khargapur, Husariya, Lucknow. Earlier also, measurement and demarcation was tried to be done , but the same could not be carried out because of difficulty in determining Fixed Points. Therefore, M/s P.C.S. Management Consultancy Private Limited team was engaged.They along with revenue team and the team of the Lucknow Development Authority officials had resorted to Electronic Total Station (ETS) Survey, which is a computerized survey and Khasra No.232, area 0.013 hectare recorded as Nala was taken as a Fixed Point. Such Nala was later on converted into a road when the Gomti Nagar Vineet Khand- I Scheme was developed. From this Road/Nala/Khasra No.232, the location of Khasra No.55 and Khasra No.88 was found. Such Nala was later on converted into a road when the Gomti Nagar Vineet Khand- I Scheme was developed. From this Road/Nala/Khasra No.232, the location of Khasra No.55 and Khasra No.88 was found. The house of the petitioner's father was found to be situated at Plot No.55 and not on Plot No.88 and Plot No.55 admeasuring 0.6100 hectares had already been acquired in the land acquisition proceedings and compensation was paid to the recorded tenure holders, Ram Prasad, Santosh Kumar and others. 26. It has been stated by the Lucknow Development Authority in its Counter Affidavit that since it is clear that House on Plot No.1/205, Vineet Khand, Gomti Nagar is constructed over part of Khasra No.55, which has been acquired after payment of compensation to the recorded tenure holders by the impugned order dated 30.04.2024, the possession of the said plot was directed to be taken within a period of one week and it was directed that the same be handed over to private respondent in the impugned order dated 30.04.2024. 27. It has been pointed out by Shri Ratnesh Chandra from page 18 of the writ petition which is the impugned order dated 30.04.2024, that Vice-Chairman, Lucknow Development Authority has dealt with the allotment made in favour of V.D. Keshari. The records relating to such allotment had been examined by the Vice- Chairman and it was found that Plot No.1/205, Vineet Khand, Gomti Nagar had been given on the basis of a Scheme floated by the Lucknow Development Authority to V.D. Keshari on 18.07.1988. The allottee had deposited the entire amount of sale consideration along with interest thereon and the stamp papers were also made available by the allottee, but because of the unauthorised encroachment over such plot of land by the petitioners father, the sale deed could not be executed. It has also been mentioned in the impugned order that father of the petitioner had been given a choice to take another plot of land in Gomti Nagar Vistar Yojana and Shri V.D. Keshari be given the possession of Plot No.1/205, Vineet Khand, Gomti Nagar. However, he had refused such option given by the Lucknow Development Authority by its letter dated 05.05.1998. However, he had refused such option given by the Lucknow Development Authority by its letter dated 05.05.1998. It has also been mentioned in the impugned order that V.D. Keshari, the erstwhile allottee, died on 09.11.2016 and private respondent, his son, has been allotted Plot No.A-1/205, Vineet Khand, Gomti Nagar on the basis of Will made out in his favour by his father. 28. In the Rejoinder Affidavit filed by the petitioner, it has been mentioned that Writ Petition No.8426 (M/B) of 2009 was filed by Late Kaushal Kishore Shukla and Writ Petition No.1970 (M/B) of 2001 was filed by Late V.D. Keshari. V.D. Keshari in his writ petition had alleged that he has been allotted Plot No.1/205, Vineet Khand, Gomti Nagar by the Lucknow Development Authority, whereas Late Kaushal Kishore Shukla had said that a housing site was allotted by the Land Management Committee and Gram Sabha Khargapur Husariya and such land was never acquired by the Lucknow Development Authority. Since the very inception of the case, the Lucknow Development Authority had stated that House No.A-1/205, Vineet Khand, Gomti Nagar was situated over Khasra No.88 and it could not now turn around and say that the house is constructed on Khasra no. 55 on the basis of report made by a survey committee. It has also been stated in the Rejoinder Affidavit that although in the impugned order, mention has been made that the petitioner was heard along with private respondent by the Vice- Chairman, Lucknow Development Authority, in fact he was not heard at all and it was a one sided order. The allotment in favour of Late V.D. Keshari was illegal and the sale deed was never executed in favour of Late V.D. Keshari, therefore, his legal representatives could not have been allotted the plot in question only on the basis of a Will. It has also been stated that Late V.D. Keshari has fraudulently applied for allotment of plot in Vineet Khand, Gomti Nagar, although, his wife had already been allotted House No.A-3/272, Vishwas Khand, Gomti Nagar. 29. In the Rejoinder Affidavit to the Counter Affidavit filed by the Sri Sharad Pathak, Counsel for the private respondent which has been filed on 20.08.2025, the petitioner has reiterated the contents of the writ petition and contents of Writ Petition No. 8426 (M/B) of 2009 filed by the father of the petitioner. 29. In the Rejoinder Affidavit to the Counter Affidavit filed by the Sri Sharad Pathak, Counsel for the private respondent which has been filed on 20.08.2025, the petitioner has reiterated the contents of the writ petition and contents of Writ Petition No. 8426 (M/B) of 2009 filed by the father of the petitioner. Denying the contents of para 2 of the Counter Affidavit where in allegation of misrepresentation and deliberate concealment has been made by private respondent, it has been stated that the order dated 11.06.1998 was annexed in Writ Petition No. 8426 (M/B) of 2009. Writ Petition No. 4177 (M/B) of 2024 has been filed against order dated 30.04.2024. which order is an altogether new order and therefore there was no need of mentioning the order dated 11.06.1998, which was passed in reference to a different order passed by the L.D.A. It has also been stated that Writ Petition No.1701 (M/B) of 1998 related to a different cause of action and had no concern with the present petition which has been filed against order dated 30.04.2024. It has also been stated that in petition no. 1701 (M/B) of 1998 and petition no. 8426 (M/ B) of 2009, this court had directed L.D.A. to take appropriate action. Therefore, Regular Suit no. 233 of 1995 became redundant and it was not necessary to carry on with it any further or to mention it in the Writ Petition No.4177 (M/B) of 2024. 30. In Paragraph 6 of such Rejoinder Affidavit, it has been stated that actually the father of the petitioner was allotted a total of 10,000 ft.² of land through two Pattas. Two Biswa of land i.e. 272 2 ft.² was given in 1973, and at that time approval from the SDM was not required. Later on, housing patta of 6 Biswa of land was given in 1981, i.e. 816 6 ft.² Later on, some land was taken by the L.D.A. for construction of Road and for carving out plot no. 1/206, 1/204, 1/203F. Presently only 6500 ft.² of land is available with the petitioner. It has also been stated that after the order dated 29.05.2024, the L.D.A. has demolished the boundary wall of the petitioner on 05.06.2024. The house of the petitioner is constructed over 1100 ft.² of the land and not 645 ft.² only as alleged by the respondents. 31. Presently only 6500 ft.² of land is available with the petitioner. It has also been stated that after the order dated 29.05.2024, the L.D.A. has demolished the boundary wall of the petitioner on 05.06.2024. The house of the petitioner is constructed over 1100 ft.² of the land and not 645 ft.² only as alleged by the respondents. 31. It has also been argued by Sri Anshuman Singh that the Lucknow Development Authority could not be allowed to change its stand and take an altogether different stand by saying that the super imposition of Google map was done and House No.A-1/205, Vineet Khand, Gomti Nagar belonging to the petitioner was found over Khasra No.55. No Survey commission was ever conducted and only on the basis of such non-existent Survey, the location of the house of the petitioner cannot be ascertained. A dispute has also been raised regarding the survey that was allegedly conducted on 23.04.2024 as it has been stated that such survey has taken the entire Nala as Fixed Point. As per the Survey Rules, no Fixed Point can be taken over Nala Road or River at all as these things have no corners and only two parallel arms over which Fixed Point cannot be taken until there is corner. It has also been argued that an alternate land was offered by the father of the petitioner on the current rate in 1998, whereas, the petitioner’s house was constructed over a plot given to his father in 1973 sometimes in1981. C. Examination of pleadings by the Court:- 32. Since the records of Writ Petition No. 1701 (M/B) 2005: Kaushal Kishore Shukla v. State of U.P. and others and Writ Petition No. 8426 (M/B) 2009 had been summoned by an earlier order and they were tagged to the instant writ petition, we have perused the said records. 33. Writ Petition No.- 1970 (M/B) of 2001 was filed by V.D. Keshari, father of the private respondent, praying for a direction to be issued to the L.D.A. to perform it’s legal obligation by executing and registering deed of conveyance in respect of plot no. 33. Writ Petition No.- 1970 (M/B) of 2001 was filed by V.D. Keshari, father of the private respondent, praying for a direction to be issued to the L.D.A. to perform it’s legal obligation by executing and registering deed of conveyance in respect of plot no. A – 1/205, Vineet Khand, Gomti Nagar, and also to deliver its vacant possessions to the petitioner after removal of encroachment thereon within time as prescribed by the Court; and also for a direction to the Lucknow Development Authority not to transfer the said plot in question, either as a whole or in piecemeal by way of allotment to any other person. 34. A perusal of the record of this petition shows that when the writ petition was taken up as fresh on 27.04.2001, the Court noted that the petitioner had already deposited the entire amount for the plot in question and directed the Standing Counsel for the L.D.A. to seek instructions in the matter, and in the meantime, the respondents were directed not to allot the plot in question to any other person till next date of listing of the Court. 35. Writ Petition No.1970(M/B) of 2001 was dismissed for want of prosecution on 03.04.2013. An application for restoration was filed on 24.07.2014, which was dismissed for want of prosecution on 13.01.2017. V. D. Keshari had died on 09.11.2016 and an application for substitution and an application for recall were filed which were both allowed on 08.11.2017. The petition was listed for hearing, but no one appeared to the court and writ petition was again dismissed for want of prosecution on 22.05.2018. An application for recall of order dated 22.05.2018 was filed which was rejected by this Court by its order dated 09.08.2019. Again application for recall was filed, which was eventually allowed and writ petition was restored to its original number on 20.04.2022 by this Court on 09.11.2016. Vimal Chand Keshari S/o V.D. Keshari had sought substitution as he had been appointed to succeed upon the property in dispute on the basis of a registered Will deed executed by his father on 21.08.2015 in his favour. 36. Writ Petition No. 1970(M/B) of 2001 was directed to be listed along with Writ Petition No. 8426(M/B) of 2009, Kishore Shukla Vs. L.D.A. on 20.03.2023. 36. Writ Petition No. 1970(M/B) of 2001 was directed to be listed along with Writ Petition No. 8426(M/B) of 2009, Kishore Shukla Vs. L.D.A. on 20.03.2023. Writ Petition No. 8426 (M/B) of 2009 was filed by Kaushal Kishore Shukla, thepredecessor in interest of Rakesh Kumar Shukla, praying for a writ in the nature of mandamus to the respondent L.D.A. to regularise the occupancy of the petitioner of house no. 1/205 Vineet Khand, Gomti Nagar after taking requisite development charges, etc: The petitioner also prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing illegal and backdated, fraudulent allotment Order contained in Annexure, 15 to the petition by which it allotted plot no. 1/205, Vineet Khand to opposite party no. 2, V.D. Keshari as on the said land on which petitioners’s house exists for the last 28 years and to allot any other plot in favour of opposite party no. 2. It was also prayed that a high-level enquiry into bungling and fraud in allotment against the rules and removal of relevant L.D.A.records be also made. 37. It was alleged in the Writ Petition no. 8426(MB) of 2009 that Gram Sabha Khargapur Husariya gave two Pattas of land to the petitioner. One Patta for two Biswa of land was executed on 21.12.1973, and the other Patta of six Biswa of land was executed on 02.09.1981, under Section 198 of the U.P.Z.A.L.R. Act. After getting Patta the petitioner constructed a house for his family. There were about 35 such houses built on Gram Samaj land in Village Husariya before Lucknow Nagar Palika took over possession of Gram Samaj land in 1987. Lucknow Nagar Mahapalika exchanged this land with L.D.A. in 1995 in lieu of land on which presently Sahara Shehar exists. In such circumstances, the petitioners’ house and appurtenant land came under the control of L.D.A. 38. It was further alleged that the L.D.A. Board met on 27.11.1998 to consider the case of persons who had been allotted housing sites by Gram Sabha Husariya and whose possession could not be regularised. A decision was taken to regularise their possession, subject to payment of certain charges. A Sub-committee was constituted and the Additional Secretary, L.D.A. recommended that the petitioner should be allotted a plot elsewhere by the L.D.A. in lieu of present plot no. 1/205, Vineet Khand, Gomti Nagar. A decision was taken to regularise their possession, subject to payment of certain charges. A Sub-committee was constituted and the Additional Secretary, L.D.A. recommended that the petitioner should be allotted a plot elsewhere by the L.D.A. in lieu of present plot no. 1/205, Vineet Khand, Gomti Nagar. A copy of the proceedings dated 10.02.1999 of the Sub-committee have been filed as Annexure 14 to the petition. It has been alleged further that other allottees of housing sites of village Husariya have not been disturbed by the L.D.A., although they are similarly situated like the petitioner, but the petitioners plot no. 1/205, Vineet Khand, Gomti Nagar has been allotted to one Shri V.D. Keshari Opp party no. 2 and the L.D.A. is threatening demolition of the house of the petitioner. 39. It has also been alleged that the son of the petitioner, Rakesh Kumar Shukla tried to obtain certain information and copies of documents relating to Vineet Khand Phase 1, but was informed that such files were missing from the L.D.A. office. 40. It has also been stated that in 1998 also, L.D.A. had tried to demolish the petitioners house and the petitioner had filed a Writ Petition No. 1701 (M/B) of 1998, which was disposed off on statement being given on behalf of L.D.A. that they will only act in accordance with law. It has been further stated that there are a large number of plots still lying vacant in Gomti Nagar Housing Scheme which can be allotted in favour of the opposite party no. 2, and the possession of the petitioner and his house on plot no. 1/205 Vineet Khand, Gomti Nagar can be regularised. 41. Annexure 1 to the Writ Petition No. 8426 (M/B) 2009 is a letter dated 12.08.2009 sent by the Under Secy of L.D.A. to the petitioner indicating that on 12.11.2008, petitioner had been offered a plot in Gomti Nagar Vistar Yojna at the current rate of Rs 112.50 per square metre in lieu of plot no. A – 1/205. The petitioner had rejected such offer. He was still in possession of plot no. A 1/205, which had been allotted to another person and execution of sale deed could not be done in favour of the allottee because of illegal possession of Kaushal Kishore Shukla. A Direction was issued to handover vacant possession of plot no. A – 1/205. The petitioner had rejected such offer. He was still in possession of plot no. A 1/205, which had been allotted to another person and execution of sale deed could not be done in favour of the allottee because of illegal possession of Kaushal Kishore Shukla. A Direction was issued to handover vacant possession of plot no. A- 1/205,Vineet Khand, Gomti Nagar to the officials of the L.D.A. within 15 days or else the illegal construction of the petitioner would be demolished forcibly by the L.D.A. Late V.D. Keshari was impleaded as respondent no. 2 in Writ Petition No. 8426, (M/B) 2009, but notice was never served upon him and he did not file any Counter Affidavit. Later on a Substitution Application was filed for impleading Vimal Chand Keshari, his son as respondent which was alllowed 2023 by court’s order. VC Keshari thereafter find a Counter Affidavit wherein it was stated that L.D.A.’s allotment of land/housing site at Khasra no. 88 in the year 1973 to the Petitioner’s father was not a genuine document as he did not fall within any of the categories/order of preference as mentioned under the relevant sections of the U.P.Z.A.L.R. Act. Kaushal Kishore Shukla retired from Service in 1990, and he was very much in service in 1973, when the alleged housing Patta was allotted to him of 2 Biswas of land on Khasra no. 88. The formalities required for completing such allotment on the basis of resolution passed by the Gaon Sabha were also not observed as no prior permission of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate was taken. It was also alleged that Lucknow Development Authority had acquired land for Vineet Khand phase 1, sometime in the year 1980 which is evident from an application for allotment of plot in Vineet Khand phase 1 made by one Pushpa Gattani on 01.12.1982 on which allotment was made to her of plot no. A – 1/207, Vineet Khand, Gomti Nagar of an area of 540 m². It was also stated in the said Counter Affidavit that the petitioner had earlier filed Original suit no. 233 of 1995 against the L.D.A. along with an application for Interim Injunction. Such application was rejected by the Munsif Hawali on 21.03.1998. 42. A – 1/207, Vineet Khand, Gomti Nagar of an area of 540 m². It was also stated in the said Counter Affidavit that the petitioner had earlier filed Original suit no. 233 of 1995 against the L.D.A. along with an application for Interim Injunction. Such application was rejected by the Munsif Hawali on 21.03.1998. 42. In the Counter Affidavit to W.P. 8426 (M/B) 2009 filed on behalf of the L.D.A. in February, 2020 it was stated that the patta allegedly granted by the Gram Pradhan was fictitious as no person can be granted more than 1.5 Biswa of Abadi land for Housing Patta. The case of the petitioner that he was ex-army person and therefore he was granted patta on special consideration is also not correct as persons belonging to general category can be given land only if they are landless and below poverty line. Also, the Patta had not been approved by Assistant Collector First Class/Sub-Divisional Magistrate. It was also stated that only on the basis of receipts of payment of house tax, ownership could not be established. The petitioner has remained in unauthorised possession of land which was acquired by the Government for L.D.A.. It was also stated that Gram Samaj land has been taken over by the Development Authority on the basis of resumption orders issued in this regard by the State Government. 43. Writ Petition No. 8426 (M/B) 2009 was dismissed for want of Prosecution on 07.03.2024. Application for recall of order dated, 07.03.2024 was filed by the legal heirs of the petitioner Kaushal Kishore Shukla on 12.03.2024 to which a detailed objection was filed by Vimal Chand Keshari. When application was taken up for hearing on 29.05.2024, Shri Anurag Narayan Srivastava, counsel for the petitioner stated that he did not wish to press this application for recall as Lucknow Development Authority has passed a fresh order which he proposed to challenge in another writ petition . Accordingly, the application for recall of order dated07.03.2024 was rejected on 29.05.2024. 44. In paragraph 13 of the Writ Petition No.4177 of 2024, it has been stated that V.D. Keshari had applied for LIG house in Tikait Rai housing scheme of L.D.A. Subsequently, he was allotted 540 m² of land in Gomti Nagar and besides his wife Kamla Keshari was also allotted B– 3/272, Vishwas Khand, Gomti Nagar. 44. In paragraph 13 of the Writ Petition No.4177 of 2024, it has been stated that V.D. Keshari had applied for LIG house in Tikait Rai housing scheme of L.D.A. Subsequently, he was allotted 540 m² of land in Gomti Nagar and besides his wife Kamla Keshari was also allotted B– 3/272, Vishwas Khand, Gomti Nagar. As both spouses cannot be allotted house and a plot in the same city by the L.D.A. This allotment was illegally done and in support of this allegation Annexure-16 has been filed. 45. On a perusal of Annexure 16 to the Writ Petition no.4177 of 2024, it is evident that it relates to lease in the name of Manoj Kesarwani, son of V.D. Keshari, and Smt. Kamla Keshari, wife of V.D. Keshari of house no. 3/272, Vishwas Khand, Gomti Nagar constructed on 200 m². 46. A copy of the resolution dated 10.02.1999 and a copy of the letter dated 29.01.2008 issued by the Public Information Officer and also a report submitted by the L.D.A. before the Yachika Samiti of Vidhan Sabha, showing such admission has been collectively filed as Annexure 21 to the petition. 47. On the basis of such submissions made in Writ Petition No. 4177 (M/B) of 2024, petitioner Rakesh Kumar Shukla has prayed for quashing of order dated 30.04.2024 passed by the Chairman L.D.A. in relation to plot no. 1/205, and has also prayed for a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to allot plot no. 1/205, Vineet Khand, belonging to the petitioner, to any other person. 48. A perusal of Annexure 20 of the Writ Petition No.4177 (M/B) of2024 shows that it is a letter sent on 05.05.2008 by the Joint Director Land Development, L.D.A. Lucknow to Kaushal Kishore Shukla, wherein it has been stated that the Patta/allotment made in favour of the petitioner is doubtful and his possession over plot no. 1/205, Vineet Khand is illegal as such Khasra number has already been acquired and made a part of layout plan of Vineet Khand, Phase-I Gomti Nagar. 49. It was also informed to him that the allottee V.D. Keshari had filed petition no. 1970 (M/B) of 2001 in the High Court in which an interim order dated 27.04.2005 was passed that since the petitioner had deposited the entire amount relating to allotment of plot no. 49. It was also informed to him that the allottee V.D. Keshari had filed petition no. 1970 (M/B) of 2001 in the High Court in which an interim order dated 27.04.2005 was passed that since the petitioner had deposited the entire amount relating to allotment of plot no. 1/205, Vineet Khand such plot may not be allotted to anyone else during pendency of the petition. 50. A perusal of Annexure 21 to the Writ Petition No. 4177 of 2024 shows that it is reply given by Public Information Officer L.D.A. on 29.01.2008 to Kaushal Kishore Shukla with respect to an application made by him under the Right to Information Act. The petitioner had perhaps filed an appeal no. 45(A)/07 before the State Information Commission alleging withholding of information by the L.D.A. This information related to plot numbers 1/208A and 1/208B situated in Vineet Khand, Gomti Nagar. Information had also been sought with regard to allotment of plot no. 1/205, Vineet Khand in favour of V.D. Keshari as well. Such information being in the nature of information relating to third party, objections were raised by Shri V.D. Keshari regarding giving of the same to Kaushal Kishore Shukla. Nevertheless, the entire file relating to allotment of plot no. 1/205, Vineet Khand, Gomti Nagar was shown to Kaushal Kishore Shukla in the office of the State Information Commission on 10.01.2008 and photocopies of relevant papers were also given to him. 51. We have carefully gone through the alleged receipt dated 02.09.1981 of Rs.50 relating to Housing site allotment of six Biswa. It has been issued in the name of Kaushal Kishore Shukla, son of Sant Baksh Shukla, and the name of the Gaon Sabha is shown as “Chanda” and the name of the Gram Pradhan has been shown as Ram Bharose. Another receipt which has been filed was also issued by Ram Bharose Pradhan on 21.12.1973 which is again for Rs.50 regarding allotment of 2 Biswa of land in Khasra no. 88 for housing purposes. It is not clear from both receipts of only Rs.50 as to why Ram Bharose Gram Pradhan of Gram Sabha “Chanda” had issued such receipts for two Biswa of land i.e. around 272 2 ft.² in 1973 and again six Biswa of land ie. 88 for housing purposes. It is not clear from both receipts of only Rs.50 as to why Ram Bharose Gram Pradhan of Gram Sabha “Chanda” had issued such receipts for two Biswa of land i.e. around 272 2 ft.² in 1973 and again six Biswa of land ie. around 816 6 ft.² in 1981, showing the same amount of money for different pieces of land, one land being evidently only one third of the other. 52. This Court has also carefully gone through the letters of recommendation allegedly made in favour of Kaushal Kishore Shukla by the Camp Commandant to the Deputy Collector, Lucknow and to the Consolidation Officer collectively filed as Annexures to the Writ Petition No.8426 (M/B) of 2009. It is clear from a perusal of such documents that one letter was sent by the Camp Commandant on 20.02.1984 addressed to the Consolidation Officer Lucknow, forwarding an application of Havaldar KK Shukla serving in the Headquarters of 11 Mountain Brigade, regarding registration of purchased land in his name as mentioned in his application submitted along with the covering letter. Copy of such recommendatory letter dated 20.02.1984 has been endorsed to Shri Sant Baksh Shukla, resident of village Kinhauli ka Purva, Post Office Malauli, district Barabanki, (the father of Kaushal Kishore Shukla) and to Shri Ram Bharose Rawat, owner of the land R/O Village Husariya , Post Chinhat Lucknow. The application submitted by Havaldar KK Shukla enclosed along with the covering letter has conveniently not been filed by the petitioner, Kaushal Kishore Shukla in such Writ Petition No.8426(MB) of 2009. 53. This court has also carefully perused the letter dated 26.10.1988 sent by Major K.V. Rajan Camp Commandant from the Headquarters of 54 th Infantry Division, forwarding an application in respect of prayer for excluding allotted land out of the plan of L.D.A., and strongly recommending the same. This letter is also endorsed to R B pandey advocate High Court, Lucknow and Sri Sant Baksh Shukla R/O Village Kinhauli ka Purva , Post Malauli, District Barabanki. 54. This letter is also endorsed to R B pandey advocate High Court, Lucknow and Sri Sant Baksh Shukla R/O Village Kinhauli ka Purva , Post Malauli, District Barabanki. 54. We have also carefully gone through copy of the Parivar Register filed by the petitioner showing house No. 54 with the name of it’s occupants as Kaushal Kishore Shukla, son of Sant Baksh Shukla, Smt Kanti wife of Kaushal Kishore, Rajesh Kumar and Rakesh Kumar sons of Kaushal Kishore, such copy of Parivar Register has also been issued on 11.09.1981, showing the name of the Gram Sabha as Khargapur Husariya, name of Nyay Panchayat as Nizampur Malhaur, name of village as Husariya, showing the name of Ram Bharose as Gram Pradhan as the person who had made the entries. It is common knowledge that Parivar Registers are maintained by Gram Panchayat Secretaries and entries therein are made by such Secretaries alone. It is not clear as to under what circumstances the Gram Pradhan and not the Panchayat Secretary to the Gram Sabha had made such entries in the Pariwar Register. A presumption can be drawn regarding Ram Bharose Gram Pradhan being the same person as Ram Bharose Rawat, the seller of certain land of village Husariya to the father of the petitioner late Kaushal Kishore Shukla, as the copy of the recommendatory letter dated 20.02.1984 sent by the Camp Commander to the Consolidation Officer has been endorsed to Ram Bharose Rawat as seller of the land. 55. It is also not clear as to how Ram Bharose Gram Pradhan of Gram Sabha “Chanda” as mentioned in the receipt of 1973, also, claimed to be the Gram Pradhan of village Husariya. There may be different hamlets of one Gram Panchayat. Village Husariya may be a hamlet of Gram Panchayat Khargapur Husariya. The Gram Pradhan Ram Bharose would only be competent to issue receipt for Gram Panchayat Khargapur Husariya but he had issued receipt for Gram Sabha Chanda in 1981, and also shown himself to be Gram Pradhan Husariya for a period of nearly fifteen years right from 1973 to 1987. 56. We have carefully examined various annexures to the Writ Petition No. 8426(MB) of 2009 and Writ Petition No. 4177 of 2024 and we find that Annexure 18 to the petition no. 4177 of 2024, which is a copy of the minutes of the meeting dated 27.11.1998 held by the L.D.A. Board. 56. We have carefully examined various annexures to the Writ Petition No. 8426(MB) of 2009 and Writ Petition No. 4177 of 2024 and we find that Annexure 18 to the petition no. 4177 of 2024, which is a copy of the minutes of the meeting dated 27.11.1998 held by the L.D.A. Board. With regard to Agenda item no. 16, the office noting has been relied upon by the petitioner, where it has been stated that Ujariaon Housing Scheme Part II was notified on 08.12.1984, under which acquisition of land of village Husariya was done by the L.D.A. Layout plan was prepared of Vineet Khand, Gomti Nagar in 1988–89 and allotment was done with effect from 1989. Such Scheme could not be completed because the land which was acquired had already be occupied by local people by raising permanent constructions thereon and they wanted regularisation of such possession and construction, and were willing to pay charges as fixed by the L.D.A. The problem was continuing for the past several years and was still unresolved i.e. till the date of meeting held in November 1998. There were around thirty to thirty five such permanent constructions. The office noting stated that the local residents were constantly pressurising the officers of L.D.A.to regularise/adjust their construction and they were obstructing all development work which was tried to be carried out in the area. There were also certain people who had being granted interim orders by the court. There were still others in whose case the court had directed that their construction be considered for regularisation. Officials of the L.D.A. had held repeated meetings with such local residents who had raised constructions on land belonging to Gram Samaj or land which had been acquired by the L.D.A. 57. It was proposed in the office note that where no acquisition proceedings had taken place and Gram Samaj land was converted into Bhumidhari land, construction raised thereon should be regularised by taking development charges from the owners. Also, regularisation be done of construction on such land which, though acquired, no compensation had been paid to such occupiers by taking current rates fixed by the L.D.A. for such land. The L.D.A. Board had given its approval in principal to such proposal. The Vice Chairman L.D.A. was given the power to decide each case on its merit later on. 58. The L.D.A. Board had given its approval in principal to such proposal. The Vice Chairman L.D.A. was given the power to decide each case on its merit later on. 58. We have also gone through Annexure 14 to the Writ Petition No.8426 (M/B) of 2009, which is a copy of minutes of meeting held on 10.02.1999. With regard to plot no. 88 area 8167.50 ft.², the case of Kaushal Kishore Shukla was considered and it was found that as per Patta receipts produced by him he had been allotted 8167.50 ft.² of land. He had built boundary wall on5423.23 ft.² and constructed a house on 645.60 ft.² of such land. Such construction was affecting plot no. 1/205, Vineet Khand, Gomti Nagar which had already been allotted by the L.D.A. to someone else and the entire cost had been deposited by the allottee. Therefore, it was recommended that KK Shukla be allotted land at some other place at current rates. 59. Annexure 18 of the Writ Petition No.8426 (M/B) of 2009 relates to First Appeal filed by Rakesh Kumar Shukla under Right to Information Act in relation to information sought regarding allotment of plot nos. 208A and 208 B of Vineet Khand, phase 1, Gomti Nagar, and is not related in any manner to plot no. 1/205 Vineet Khand, Gomti Nagar Development charges from them. 60. On consideration of Annexures to the counter affidavits filed by respondents it is evident from a perusal of the plaint in Regular Suit no. 233 of 1995 filed for permanent injunction, it is evident that the plaintiff had initially stated that 6 Biswa of land was allotted in 1980 for Housing purposes by the Gram Sabha Khargapur Husariya and possession was given in 1980 and house was constructed there on also in 1980. Later on the figure ‘6’ was scratched out and over written by figure of ‘8’. Also the year, 1980 was scratched out and 1973 over written on it. It has been argued by learned Counsel for the Respondents that such interpolation was done without any application being moved for Amendment of plaint by the plaintiff. This argument has not been disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner. It was stated further in the plaint by Kaushal Kishore Shukla that on 25.03.1995 at around 11 A.M., L.D.A. officials had approached the property in dispute and tried to demolish the boundary wall. This argument has not been disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner. It was stated further in the plaint by Kaushal Kishore Shukla that on 25.03.1995 at around 11 A.M., L.D.A. officials had approached the property in dispute and tried to demolish the boundary wall. Since, the plaintiff was present he objected to such illegal demolition. He also showed papers relating to allotment of Housing Patta to them and they returned but threatened to come again and demolish the house and boundary wall. Again on 27.03.1995 at around 11:15 AM, employees of the L.D.A. tried to demolish the house of the plaintiff. The plaintiff objected and the employees returned. Since then twice attempt had been made by the officials of L.D.A. to demolish the house and boundary wall of the plaintiff and he had felt the need to approach the civil court, praying for Permanent Injunction. 61. Copies of the order dated 25.04.1995 and 31.03.1998 passed by Munsif Havali Lucknow, have also been annexed by the Respondents. It seems from a perusal of the orders passed by Munsif Hawali that when the suit for Permanent Injunction was filed, no Ad interim ex parte injunction was granted and L.D.A. was issued notice. The L.D.A. filed objections to the application for Interim Injunction where copies of Gazette notification relating to acquisition of land of village Husariya in Gomti Nagar were annexed. The court rejected the application for temporary injunction. A written statement was also filed by Lucknow Development Authority, copy of which is also annexed to the Counter Affidavit of the private respondent. In such written statement it has been mentioned that Khasra no. 88 ad-measuring 3 Bigha 15 Biswansi, is divided into six parts out of these six parts, Khasra no. 88/1, 88/2, and 88/3 had been acquired through a notification issued under Section 4, read with Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act on 4.12.1984. Also, Section 6 read with Section 17 notification was also issued on 4.12.1984. The Award was declared on 25.02.1987, and possession was given to L.D.A. on 30.03.1986. Khasra no. 88/4, 88/5 are recorded in revenue records as Banjar and Khasra no. 88/6 has been recorded as Raasta and belonged to Gaon Sabha Husariya. After expansion of municipal limits such land of Gram Sabha was vested in the Nagar Nigam. From Nagar Nigam, such land was transferred to L.D.A.. Khasra no. 88/4, 88/5 are recorded in revenue records as Banjar and Khasra no. 88/6 has been recorded as Raasta and belonged to Gaon Sabha Husariya. After expansion of municipal limits such land of Gram Sabha was vested in the Nagar Nigam. From Nagar Nigam, such land was transferred to L.D.A.. It is incorrect to say that Khasra no. 88 is Abadi land and Gram Pradhan had a right to give Housing Patta on it. In case any allotment had been done by the Pradhan, it was illegal as it was against the provisions of Section 122C of the U.P.Z.L.A.R. Act. The ownership of the plaintiff over 8 Biswa of land on the basis of Housing Patta alloted to him by by Gram Pradhan was seriously disputed as such allotment could not have been done without prior approval of the Assistant Collector first class/ SDM. The plaintiff was also not coming within the order of preference/eligibility as mentioned in the U.P.Z.A.L.R. Act. The Suit had been filed without impleading the State of U.P. and Nagar Nigam and suffered from non-joinder of necessary party. No notice under Section 80 of this C.P.C. and Section 106 of Panchayat Raj Act was given. Hence, it was not maintainable. Thereafter the Original Suit no. 233 of 1995 was listed on several occasions. Issues were framed on 02.12.1998. After exchange of pleadings the Suit was dismissed for want of prosecution on the continued absence of the counsel for the plaintiff. 62. A true copy of Writ Petition No. 1701 (M/B) of 1998 has been filed and also of the order of this Court dated 21.03.1998. From a perusal of Writ Petition No. 1701 (M/B) of 1998, it is evident that in paragraph 3, the petitioner had stated that he had constructed a house on a plot of land measuring 6 Biswa which was granted as housing Patta by Gaon Sabha Khargapur Husariya and a house was built on permission being given by the Gram Pradhan on 02.09.1981. Much after the petitioner built the aforesaid house, Gomti Nagar Scheme was extended to nearby areas and in 1992 land of nearby areas was taken over by L.D.A. and layout plan of Vineet Khand, Phase-I, Gomti Nagar was made. However, the persons who were already residing in those areas for the last 10 years were not touched. Much after the petitioner built the aforesaid house, Gomti Nagar Scheme was extended to nearby areas and in 1992 land of nearby areas was taken over by L.D.A. and layout plan of Vineet Khand, Phase-I, Gomti Nagar was made. However, the persons who were already residing in those areas for the last 10 years were not touched. No formal notice was issued of any kind to the petitioner by L.D.A. and its officials tried to demolish the petitioners house alleging that the land had been acquired. Due to oral threats of demolition made by L.D.A. officials on 28.05.1998, and no order in writing having been passed in this regard, the petitioner had approached the High Court. The prayer made in the Writ Petition No.1701 (M/B) of 1998 was for issuance of a Mandamus to the respondent L.D.A. not to interfere with the peaceful possession of petitioner’s house, presently numbered by L.D.A. as plot no.1/205, Vineet Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, and that they may be restrained from damaging or demolishing the aforesaid house or taking possession of the aforesaid a plot from the petitioner. A further prayer was made for issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the impugned order, if any, passed against the petitioner in respect of the plot in question after summoning the original from the opposite party. It appears that the Writ Petition No. 1701 (M/B) 1998 was filed on 08.06.1998, taken up as fresh on 11.06. 1998 and was disposed of on the same day recording the statement of the counsel for Lucknow Development Authority that it will only act in accordance with law. A perusal of this petition shows that there is no mention of Regular Suit No.233 of 1995 filed in the court of Civil Judge, Hawali Lucknow praying for Permanent Injunction where notice was issued to L.D.A. and application for Interim Injunction was rejected on 31.03.1998. 63. True copy of topographical Survey map of village Husariya of Khasra no. 88, Vineet Khand, Gomti Nagar, prepared by joint team of L.D.A. and Revenue officials has been filed in the Counter Affidavit of the private respondent. 63. True copy of topographical Survey map of village Husariya of Khasra no. 88, Vineet Khand, Gomti Nagar, prepared by joint team of L.D.A. and Revenue officials has been filed in the Counter Affidavit of the private respondent. From a perusal of the report submitted on 27.04.2024, by the Consolidation Officer in the office of the L.D.A. to the Deputy Secretary, L.D.A. it is evident that a request was made in pursuance of filing of Writ Petition No. 8426 (M/B) of 2009, (Kaushal Kishore Shukla versus L.D.A.), on12.10.2023, for spot inspection to be carried out of Khasra no. 55 and Khasra no. 88 in village Husariya and plot no. A – 1/205 area 540 m² in Vineet Khand, Gomti Nagar. The SDM Sadar had constituted the team of Revenue Officials on 22.04.2024, and the team inspected the area and conducted demarcation/identification on 23.04.2024, and it was found that plot no. A–1/205,Vineet Khand, Gomti Nagar was situated on part of Khasra no. 55, which had been acquired under Ujariaon Housing Scheme phase 2 in 1984, and had been incorporated in the planned development of Vineet Khand by the L.D.A. A true copy of the notification under Section 4 and Section 6 of the Land Acquisition of Khasra no. 55 has also been filed. A true copy of the detailed Counter Affidavit filed by the L.D.A. in Writ Petition No. 8426 (M/B) of 2009 has also been filed in the Counter Affidavit of V.C. Keshari, private respondent in Writ Petition No. 4177 of 2024. 64. On consideration of the order impugned in Writ Petition No. 4177 of 2024, we find that the Order dated 30.04.2024 passed by the Vice Chairman, L.D.A. on the representation of Vimal Chand Keshari, son of Vaman Das Keshari impugned in Writ Petition No. 4177 of 2024 states that it has been passed in compliance of order dated 07.03.2024 passed in Writ Petition No. 1970 (M/B) of 2001. A representation was made in compliance of such order by Vimal Chand Keshari on 11.03.24 and on 22.04.2024 both Vimal Chand Keshari and Rakesh Kumar Shukla were heard in person and the records perused by him. As per the records, plot no. 1/205, Vineet Khand, Gomti Nagar was allotted on cash down basis to V.D. Keshari on 18.07.1988. A representation was made in compliance of such order by Vimal Chand Keshari on 11.03.24 and on 22.04.2024 both Vimal Chand Keshari and Rakesh Kumar Shukla were heard in person and the records perused by him. As per the records, plot no. 1/205, Vineet Khand, Gomti Nagar was allotted on cash down basis to V.D. Keshari on 18.07.1988. The entire amount along with interest thereon was deposited by V.D. Keshari, but because of encroachment on such plot of land, its possession could not be delivered and lease deed could not be executed . The land was found to be encroached upon by Kaushal Kishore Shukla who alleged that the same had been granted to him on Patta by the Gaon Sabha. The then Vice Chairman L.D.A. had on 05.05.1998, on Pradhikaran Mitra Diwas directed that possession should be given of the plot to V.D. Keshari and Kaushal Kishore Shukla should be allotted some other plot in another scheme of the L.D.A. at current rates. However, Kaushal Kishore Shukla continued to give representations at various levels for regularisation of his illegal encroachment on land occupied by him. He did not give any consent for being allotted another plot of land somewhere else. As a result, the order dated 05.05.1998 came to be automatically cancelled. 65. Shri V.D. Keshari thereafter approached the High Court by filing Writ Petition No. 1970 (M/B) of 2001. Kaushal Kishore Shukla also filed Writ Petition No. 8426 (M/B) of 2009, and alleged that his allotment for Housing site in village Husariya was on Khasra no. 88 by the Gaon Sabha. 66. It was further stated in the order dated 30.04.24 by the Vice Chairman that The Land Acquisition Section had submitted Google superimposed map of Vineet Khand, Gomti Nagar and plot no. 1/205, actually fell on Khasra no. 55, which was acquired by the L.D.A. and incorporated in its Layout Plan after giving compensation to the tenure holders in this regard. Khasra no. 88 was not being affected by the encroachment made by Kaushal Kishore Shukla. The ADM Land Acquisition had given possession to the L.D.A. of the land falling in village Husariya in 1986 and Award was declared on 25.02.1987. The land had vested in the State Government and thereafter transferred to the L.D.A.. Shri Vaman Das Keshari died on 09.11.2016 and the allotment of plot no. A – 1/205. The ADM Land Acquisition had given possession to the L.D.A. of the land falling in village Husariya in 1986 and Award was declared on 25.02.1987. The land had vested in the State Government and thereafter transferred to the L.D.A.. Shri Vaman Das Keshari died on 09.11.2016 and the allotment of plot no. A – 1/205. Vineet has been made in his son’s name. 67. During the course of hearing, given by V.C. L.D.A. Rakesh Kumar Shukla son of late Kaushal Kishore Shukla had stated that his father was allotted Khasra no. 88 as Housing site in 1973 by Gram Pradhan village Husariya and the report submitted by the Land Acquisition Section of the L.D.A. was incorrect. Again, taking into account such objection, the Land Acquisition Section, the Lekhpal of area Khargapur constituted a joint team and inspected the site and identification by Total Station Machine was done on the basis whereof a report was submitted on 23.04.2024 that the Survey carried out through ETS had identified Khasra no. 232 area 0.013 ha as Naala in village Husariya over which road was constructed which was in existence till date and in the map prepared by ETS Consultancy of village Husariya on the basis of such Fixed point, land of Khasra no. 55 is shown in pink colour, and Khasra no. 88 has been shown in green colour. In such map of Village Husariya, the house of Kaushal Kishore Shukla is situated on Khasra no. 55 and not on Khasra no. 88. Also Khasra no. 55 area 0.6100 ha was acquired after giving compensation to its recorded tenure holders Ram Prasad, Santosh Kumar and others. Even on a perusal of Report submitted by the Consolidation Officer on 27.04.2024, it is evident that plot no. A – 1/205 Vineet Khand, Gomti Nagar falls on Khasra no. 55 of village Husariya which had been acquired under the Ujariaon Residential Scheme Part II in 1984 itself. Land of Khasra no. 55 had been acquired and planned development has been carried out by L.D.A.. 68. The Vice Chairman also dealt with submission made by Rakesh Kumar Shukla that allotment of A-1/205 in favour of V.D. Keshari could not have been done because he had already been allotted house no. 3/272 Vishwas Khand Gomti Nagar. The original records were perused and it was found that house no. 68. The Vice Chairman also dealt with submission made by Rakesh Kumar Shukla that allotment of A-1/205 in favour of V.D. Keshari could not have been done because he had already been allotted house no. 3/272 Vishwas Khand Gomti Nagar. The original records were perused and it was found that house no. 3/272 Vishwas Khand, Gomti Nagar was allotted to Shri Rajeev Kesarwani son of Ramakrishna Kesarwani through lottery mode on 07.01.1984, and Manoj Kesarwani was allotted plot no. 3/438 Viram Khand, Gomti Nagar. Rajiv Kesarwani and Manoj Kesarwani had given an application for mutual exchange of the allotments made to them as a result of which house no. 3/272 Vishwas Khand Gomti Nagar was allotted in favour of Manoj Kesarwani and plot no. 3/438 Viram Khand Gomti Nagar was allotted in favour of Rajiv Kesarwani. Smt. Kamla Keshari wife of V.D. Keshari was not the original allottee of house no. 3/272, Vishwas Khand Gomti Nagar. Her name was added later on in the lease deed on the request of her son Manoj Kesarwani. D- Statutory Provisions 69. Furthermore, the submissions of both parties also require scrutiny on the basis of the governing statutory framework. A housing site patta can be given as per the provisions of Section 122-C of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 read with Rules 115-L, 115-N & 115-O of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1952 (Published vide Notification No. 7996/I-A-1282-1952, dated 08.10.1952) and Paras 47 and 49 along with Z.A. Form 49-D, Z. A. Form 49-E, Z. A. Form 49-F (Certificate of Allotment) under Para 49 (3) of the U.P. Gram Sabha, Gram Panchayat and Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti Manual (hereinafter referred to as The Manual). 70. Section 122-C of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, is the substantive provision, introduced by the U.P. Land Laws (Amendment) Act, 1971, with the object of regulating the allotment of housing sites. This amendment came into force on 22 August 1971. 70. Section 122-C of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, is the substantive provision, introduced by the U.P. Land Laws (Amendment) Act, 1971, with the object of regulating the allotment of housing sites. This amendment came into force on 22 August 1971. The relevant part of the U.P. Land Laws (Amendment) Act, 1971, is being quoted below:- “In pursuance of the provisions of clause (3) of Article 348 of the Constitution of India, the Governor is pleased to order the publication of the following English translation of the Uttar Pradesh Bhoomi-Vidhi (Sanshodhan) Adhiniyam, 1971 (Uttar Pradesh Adhiniyam Sankhya 21 of 1971) as passed by the Uttar Pradesh Legislature and assented to by the President on August 22, 1971. UTTAR PRADESH LAND LAWS (AMENDMENT) ACT, 1971 (U.P. Act No. 21 of 1971) (As passed by the Uttar Pradesh Legislature) An Act further to amend the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 and the Uttar Pradesh Urban Areas Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1956. It is hereby enacted in the Twenty-Second Year of the Republic of India as follows:- CHAPTER I Preliminary 1. .................. CHAPTER II 2. .................. 3. After section 122-B of the principal Act, the following sections shall be inserted, namely ; “122-C, (1) The Assistant Collector In-charge of the sub- division, of his own motion or on the resolution of the Land Management Committee, may ear-mark any of the following classes of land for the provision of abadi sites for the members of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes and agricultural labourers etc., and village artisans - (a) lands referred to in clause (i) of sub-section (I) of section 117 and vested in the Gaon Sabha under that section ; (b) lands coming into possession of the Land Management Committee under Section 194 or under any other provision of this Act; (c) any other land which is deemed to be or becomes vacant under section 13, section 14, section 163, section 186 or section 211; (d) where the land ear-marked for the extension of abadi and reserved as abadi site for Harijans under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, is considered by him to be insufficient and land ear-marked for other public purpose under that Act is available, then any part of the land so available. (2) Notwithstanding anything in sections 122-A, 195, 196, 197 and 198 of this Act, or in Section 4, 15, 16, 28-B and 34 of the United Provinces Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, the Land Management Committee may with the previous approval of the Assistant Collector In-charge of the sub- division, allot, for the purpose of building of houses, to persons referred to in sub-section (3) - (a) any land ear-marked under sub-section (1); (b) any land ear-marked for the extension of abadi sites for Harijans under the provisions of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953; (c) any abadi site referred to in clause (vi) of section (i) of section 117 and vested in the Gaon Sabha; (d) any land acquired for the said purposes under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. (3) The following order of preference shall be observed in making allotments under sub-section (2)- (i) an agricultural labourer or a village artisan residing in Gram Sabha and belonging to any of the following categories in the order of preference:- (a) persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes: (b) persons belonging to other Backward Classes; (c) persons belonging to the general category living below poverty line; (ii) any other agricultural labourer or village artisan residing in the village; (iii) any other person residing in the Gram Sabha and belonging to any of the following categories in the order of preference:- (a) persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes; (b) persons belonging to Other Backward Classes; (c) persons belonging to the general category living below poverty line; (iv) a person with disability residing in the village. Explanation I-The expression "agricultural labourer" shall have the same meaning as in Section 198. Explanation I-The expression "agricultural labourer" shall have the same meaning as in Section 198. Explanation II-The expression 'village artisan' means a person who does not hold any agricultural land and whose main source of livelihood is manufacture or repair of traditional tools, implements and other articles or things used for agriculture or purposes ancillary thereto and includes a carpenter, weaver, potter, blacksmith, silversmith, goldsmith, barber, washerman, cobbler or any other person who normally earns his livelihood by practising a craft either by his own labour or by the labour of any member of his family in any rural area: Provided that no person shall be deemed to be a village artisan whose total income (including income of his or her spouse and minor children) exceeds two thousand four hundred rupees in a year. Explanation III-The expression “person with disability” shall mean a person with any disabilities mentioned in Clause (I) of Section 2 of the persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection & Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1955 (Act No. 1 of 1996). Explanation IV-Preference shall be given to a person who either holds no house or has insufficient housing accommodation considering the requirements of his family. Explanation V-The expression “persons of General Category living below poverty line” shall have the same meaning as in Section 198. (4) If the Assistant Collector-in-charge of the sub-division is satisfied that the Land Management Committee has failed to discharge its duties or to perform its functions under sub-section (2) or it is otherwise necessary or expedient so to do, he may himself allot such land in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (3). (5) Any land allotted under this section shall be held by the allottee on such terms and conditions as may be prescribed. (6) The Collector may of his own motion and shall on the application of any persons aggrieved by an allotment of land under this section inquire in the manner prescribed into such allotment, and if he is satisfied that the allotment is irregular, he may cancel the allotment, and thereupon the right, title and interest of the allottee and of every other person claiming through him in the land allotted shall cease. (7) Every order passed by the Assistant Collector under sub-section (4) shall, subject to the provisions of sub-section (6) and every order passed by the Collector under sub-section (6) shall be find, and the provisions of Section 333 and Section 333-A shall not apply in relation thereto. (8) The Assistant Collector in-charge of the sub-division, of his own motion or on any application made to him in that behalf may in order to carry into effect any allotment of land or other order made under sub-section (2), sub- section (4) or sub-section (6) direct delivery of possession of any such land to an allottee or to the Gaon Sabha after ejectment of every person holding or retaining possession thereof, any may for that purpose use or cause to be used such force as may be necessary.” 71. The procedural aspect of grant of Lease/Allotment Certificate is governed by Rule 115-L, Rule 115-M and Rule 115-O of the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reform Rules, 1952. This rule was added by notification no. 11/1-A-1199-1953, dated March 11, 1954 and substituted by No. 188/1-A-4(11)-70, dated April 5, 1971, and again substituted by No. 256/Rajaswa-1, dated March16/17,1972. 72. Rule 115-L, Rule 115-M, and Rule 115-O of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1952, as they stood at the relevant time, are reproduced herein-below: “Allotment of Land for Housing Sites 115L. A-Abadi sites for preferential categories. - (1) The Assistant Col-lector-in-charge of the sub-division may, wherever land ear-marked for the extension of abadi for Harijans under the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 and any other land of abadi site vested in Gaon Sabha is insufficient to meet the housing requirements of persons referred to in sub-section (3) of Section 122-C, proceed to earmark land for abadi sites in accordance with sub-section (1) of the said section. (2) [* * *] (3) Before allotting housing sites to persons referred to in sub- section (3) of Section 122-C, the Assistant Collector in-charge of the sub-division shall, in respect of each village, cause to be prepared the following lists and extracts- (i) a list in Z.A. Form 49-D showing separately particulars of persons of the three categories mentioned in sub-section (3) of Section 122-C; (ii) a list in Z.A. Form 49-E of lands enumerated in sub-section (2) of Section 122-C; and (iii) an extract of village map showing the plots given in the above list. (4) In making allotment of housing sites under this rule, the order of preference mentioned in sub-section (3) of Section 122-C shall be observed. (5) No premium shall be charged for allotment of housing sites under this rule.] 115M. B-Other abadi sites. - (1) Abadi sites other than those referred to in Rule 115-L and vested in a Gaon Sabha may be allotted for construction of buildings for residential or charitable purposes or for purposes of cottage industry in the following order of preference - (a) a landless agricultural labourer or a village artisan residing in the village; (b) a bhumidhar, sirdar or asami residing in the village and holding land less than 1.26 hectares (3.125 acres); (c) any other person residing in the village. (2) Every allottee under this rule shall be required to deposit an amount equal to 40 times of the rent of the land calculated at hereditary rates which shall be credited to the Gaon Fund: Provided that no premium shall be charged in respect of site allotted for charitable purpose. 115N. -General. - (1) Whenever the Land Management Committee proceeds to allot housing sites under Rule 115-L, or 115-M, it shall announce by beat of drum in the village the exact location of the sites to be allotted, the time, the date and venue of allotment. (2) All allotment shall be made by the Land Management Committee in a meeting held for the purpose on the date announced under sub-rule (1). (2) All allotment shall be made by the Land Management Committee in a meeting held for the purpose on the date announced under sub-rule (1). Where more than one person belonging to the same order of preference express their desire to be allotted a particular site, the said Committee shall draw lots to determine the person to whom the site should be allotted : Provided that the prior approval of the Assistant Collector-in- charge of the Sub-Division shall be obtained for every allotment under Rule 115-L or 115-M. (3) The allottee of the housing site shall be given a receipt for the premium, if any, paid by him to the Land Management Committee and a certificate of allotment. The certificate shall be in Z.A. Form 49-F which shall be prepared in two parts, the main certificate being given to the allottee and its counterpart remaining with the Land Management Committee for record. 115O. The maximum area of allotment under Rule 115-L or 115-M shall not exceed 250 square metres and the allottee shall not be required to pay ground rent therefor : Provided that the limit of 250 metres shall not apply to cases of allotment of land for construction of a building for a charitable purpose or for setting up a cottage industry. Relevant Provisions Contained in the U.P. Gram Sabha, Gram Panchayat, and Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti Manual (Published on 17 April 1954) 73. Para 49 of the Manual prescribes the detailed procedure to be followed for such allotment of housing sites, as provided under Rule 115-N of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules. Together, these provisions lay down both the substantive eligibility criteria and the mandatory procedural safeguards governing the allotment of Gram Sabha land for residential purposes. 74. The relevant provisions contained in Para 49 of the U.P. Manual, 1954, as it prevailed at the material time, is extracted as under “49. (1) Whenever the Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti proceeds to allot housing sites under Rule 115-L or 115-M, it shall announce by beat of drum in the village the exact location of the sites to be allotted, the time, the date and venue of allotment. (2) All allotment shall be made by the Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti in a meeting held for the purpose on the date announced under sub-rule (1). (2) All allotment shall be made by the Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti in a meeting held for the purpose on the date announced under sub-rule (1). Where more than one person belonging to the same order of preference express their desire to be allotted a particular site, the said Samiti shall draw lots to determine the person to whom the site should be allotted: Provided that the prior approval of the Assistant Collector-in- charge of the Sub-division shall be obtained for every allotment under Rule 115-L or Rule 115-M. (3) The allottee of the housing site shall be given a receipt for the premium, if any, paid by him to the Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti and a certificate of allotment. The certificate shall be in Z.A. Form 49-F which shall be prepared in two parts, the main certificate being given to the allottee and its counterpart remaining with the Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti for record.” The relevant IA forms 49-D, 49-E and 49F are being quoted hereinbelow:- E- Governing Principles 75. From the above-quoted provisions, the following governing principles emerge: - (i) Sub-Section (1) of Section 122-C empowers the Assistant Collector in charge of a subdivision, on his own or on a Land Management Committee’s resolution, to earmark specific classes of Gaon Sabha vacant land for abadi (housing) sites for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes, persons of general category below the poverty line, agricultural labourers, and village artisans. (ii) Sub-sections (2) to (8) provide that subject to the previous approval of the Assistant Collector, the Land Management Committee may allot such land for construction of houses in accordance with the prescribed order of preference among the eligible categories. In case, the Committee fails to perform its duties, the Assistant Collector himself may make the allotment. Any irregular allotment may be cancelled by the Collector after due inquiry, and his decision shall be final. (iii) Rule 115-L empowers the Assistant Collector-in-charge of the sub-division to earmark suitable land for abadi sites when the land already set apart for Harijans, Scheduled Tribes, or agricultural labourers under Section 122-C or vested in the Gaon Sabha is insufficient to meet their housing requirements. It also mandates that allotments must follow the order of preference specified in Section 122-C, ensuring fair distribution, and that no premium shall be charged for such housing site allotments. It also mandates that allotments must follow the order of preference specified in Section 122-C, ensuring fair distribution, and that no premium shall be charged for such housing site allotments. (iv) 115-L further provides that before making allotments, Assistant Collector in-charge of Sub-division shall prepare, for each village, three lists—(i) a list of eligible persons in Form 49- D, (ii) a list of available lands in Form 49-E, and (iii) an extract of the village map showing proposed plots. (v) Rule 115-N ensures transparency and fairness in allotments. It mandates public announcement of site details, date, and venue. All allotments must be made by the Land Management Committee in a properly convened meeting, with prior approval of the Assistant Collector, and every allottee must be issued a formal receipt and a certificate of allotment (Form 49- F), one copy for the allottee and one retained by the Land Management Committee for record. (iv) Rule 115-O limits the maximum area of each allotment to 250 square metres, except where land is allotted for charitable purposes or cottage industries. (vii) Para 49 of the Manual directs that before allotting housing sites under Rules 115-L or 115-M, the Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti shall announce by beat of drum the site location, date, and time of allotment. Allotments must be made in a meeting convened for that purpose, and if multiple applicants of the same category seek one plot, lots shall be drawn. Every allotment must obtain prior approval of the Assistant Collector , and the allottee receives a receipt and certificate (Form 49-F). (viii) Para 49 of the U.P. Gram Sabha, Gram Panchayat and Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti Manual, 1954, as applicable at the relevant time, when read together with Rule 115-L, 115-M, 115- N and 115-O, provide the statutory framework governing the management, control, and allotment of Gram Sabha land. These provisions collectively prescribe the duties, responsibilities and procedural safeguards to be followed by the Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti, including maintenance of land records, protection of Gram Sabha property from encroachment, and the manner in which allotments are to be considered, approved or rejected. F- Analysis of Petitioner’s Claim 76. On a conjoint reading of the above provisions, it is clear that the legislative intent is to ensure fair and equitable allotment of abadi sites to members of weaker sections, including Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and agricultural labourers and village artisans etc. F- Analysis of Petitioner’s Claim 76. On a conjoint reading of the above provisions, it is clear that the legislative intent is to ensure fair and equitable allotment of abadi sites to members of weaker sections, including Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and agricultural labourers and village artisans etc. The Assistant Collector is entrusted with the responsibility to identify suitable land, prepare the requisite records, and make allotments strictly in accordance with the prescribed order of preference under Section 122-C. The process must be transparent and just, ensuring that no premium is charged from the allottees. These safeguards collectively promote social justice and prevent arbitrary or irregular allotments. It is also clear from above quoted provisions that Section 122-C of the U.P.Z.A.L.R Act was inserted for the first time, vide Uttar Pradesh Land (Laws) Amendment Act, 1971 which was published in the Official Gazette on 22.08.1971. Sub-Section 2 of Section 122-C which was inserted vide the aforesaid amendment specifically required obtaining of previous approval of the Assistant Collector before making allotment. 77. As regards the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the requirement of prior approval of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate was introduced only in the year 1975, and that before 1975 no such approval was necessary for the grant of patta by the Gram Sabha, we find no merit in this submission. The requirement of obtaining previous approval was incorporated in the substantive provision itself by the Uttar Pradesh Land (Laws) Amendment Act, 1971, which was published in the Official Gazette on 22.08.1971. Sub-section (2) of Section 122-C expressly mandates prior approval of the Assistant Collector before any allotment is made. Therefore, no subsequent Rule, Manual or Provision, in any or notification can override or dilute the substantive statutory requirement. 78. However, any subsequent provision can only be made to bring it in conformity with the substantive provision, and this is clearly reflected in the proviso to sub-para (2) of Rule 115-N, which provides that prior approval of the Assistant Collector-in-charge of the Sub-Division shall be obtained for every allotment made under Rule 115-L or Rule 115-M. This requirement was introduced by substitution through Notification No. U.O. 605/Rajaswa-1-2(8)-75 dated 01.11.1975, thereby ensuring consistency with the mandate already contained in sub-section (2) of Section 122-C of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. G- Case Law on the Subject 79. G- Case Law on the Subject 79. In Amar Singh v. Ranpal Singh and Others, 2021 (8) ADJ 418 this Court has held that the requirement of previous approval of the Assistant Collector before grant of allotment under Sections 195, 197, and 198 of the U.P.Z.A.L.R. Act was introduced by the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1968, while the corresponding provision under Section 122-C came into force through the U.P. Land Laws (Amendment) Act, 1971. The Court further held that the substantive provisions contained in the U.P.Z.A.L.R. Act prescribed for previous approval of the Assistant Collector before allotment was very much in force prior the date of grant of alleged lease. The contention that the same was introduced for the first time on 01.11.1975 by amending Rule 115-N, can be of no help as it is settled law that Rules cannot override or control the provisions contained in the Parent Act. It is a well-established legal principle that subordinate legislation, such as Rules or Notifications, cannot override, amend, or control the substantive provisions of the parent Act. The Rules must operate strictly within the framework and intent of the Statute, yielding to it whenever any inconsistency with the Act arises. H- Fraud through Misrepresentation and Concealment 80. Courts exist to uphold justice, not to shelter deceit. Any litigant approaching the Court must come with clean hands. A claim founded on misrepresentation or falsehood amounts to fraud and a grave abuse of judicial process, warranting prompt dismissal at any stage. 81. In S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu(Dead) by LRs Vs. Jagannath (Dead) by LRs and Others, (1994) 1 SCC 1 , the Supreme Court discussed the consequence of an order obtained by fraud. It also defined the meaning of fraud. A fraud is an act of deliberate deception with the design of securing something by taking unfair advantage of another. It is a cheating intended to get an advantage. A litigant who approaches the court is bound to produce all the documents which are relevant to litigation. If he withholds a vital document in order to gain advantage on the other side, then he would be guilty of playing fraud on the court as well as on the opposite party. Non- production and even non-mentioning of a relevant fact or document is tantamount to playing fraud on the Court. One who comes to the court must come with clean hands. Non- production and even non-mentioning of a relevant fact or document is tantamount to playing fraud on the Court. One who comes to the court must come with clean hands. A person whose case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the court. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation. A judgement or decree obtained by fraud on the court is a nullity and non-est in the eyes of law. 82. In K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and others: (2008) 12 SCC 481 , the Court held that the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32 and of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is extraordinary, equitable and discretionary and it is imperative that the petitioner approaching the writ court must come with clean hands and put forward all the facts before the Court without concealing or suppressing anything and seek an appropriate relief. If there is no candid disclosure of relevant and material facts or the petitioner is guilty of misleading the Court, his petition may be dismissed at the threshold without considering the merits of the claim. The same rule was reiterated in G. Jayshree and others v. Bhagwandas S. Patel and others : (2009) 3 SCC 141 . 83. In Dalip Singh versus State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2010) 2 SCC 114 , the Supreme Court observed that a litigant’s efforts to mislead the authorities and the Court cannot but be treated as reprehensible. Such litigant belongs to a category of persons who not only attempt but succeed in polluting the course of Justice. While exercising discretionary and equitable jurisdiction under Article 32 and 226, the facts and circumstances of the case should be seen in their entirety to find out if there is miscarriage of justice. If the litigant has not come forward with clean hands, has not candidly disclosed all the facts that he is aware of, and he intends to delay the proceedings, then the court will non suit him on the ground of contumacious conduct. A party which has misled the court in passing an order in its favour is not entitled to be heard on the merits of the case. A party which has misled the court in passing an order in its favour is not entitled to be heard on the merits of the case. A person who invokes the High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is duty bound to place all the facts before the court without any reservation. If there is suppression of material facts or twisted facts have been placed before the High Court, then it will be fully justified in refusing to entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. Jurisdiction under Article 32 and 226 of the Constitution is extraordinary, equitable, and discretionary, and it is imperative that the petitioner approaching the court must come with clean hands and put forward all the facts before theCourt without concealing or suppressing anything and seek an appropriate relief. If there is no candid disclosure of relevant and material facts or the petitioner is guilty of misleading the court, his petition may be dismissed at the threshold without considering the merits of the claim. 84. In Moti Lal Songara versus Prem Prakash Alias Pappu and another (2013) 9 SCC 199 , the Supreme Court observed that anyone who takes recourse to method of suppression in a court of law is in actuality, playing fraud upon the court and the maxim “suppressio veri, expressio falsi” that is suppression of the truth is equivalent to expression of falsehood gets attracted. 85. In State of Orissa versus Laxmi Narayan Das (Dead) Through LRs & Others, (2023) 15 SCC 273 , the Supreme Court has made observations that misrepresentation and concealment on the part of the litigant should be discouraged and viewed seriously. I- Conclusion 86. The statutory scheme regulating the allotment of Gram Sabha land for housing sites is embodied in Section 122-C of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, read conjointly with Rules 115-L, 115-N and 115-O of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules, 1952, and Paras 47 and 49 of the U.P. Gram Sabha, Gram Panchayat and Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti Manual, 1954. Section 122-C, introduced by the U.P. Land Laws (Amendment) Act, 1971 and enforced from 22.08.1971, authorises the Assistant Collector to earmark suitable Gaon Sabha or vacant land for abadi sites for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes, persons of the general category below the poverty line, agricultural labourers and village artisans. Section 122-C, introduced by the U.P. Land Laws (Amendment) Act, 1971 and enforced from 22.08.1971, authorises the Assistant Collector to earmark suitable Gaon Sabha or vacant land for abadi sites for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes, persons of the general category below the poverty line, agricultural labourers and village artisans. Significantly, sub-section (2) unequivocally mandates that no allotment can be made without the prior approval of the Assistant Collector, a statutory condition in force since 1971. Further Rules 115-L to 115-O prescribe the procedural safeguards governing such allotments, including preparation of the list of eligible persons (Form 49-D), list of available land (Form 49-E), village map extracts, public announcement by beat of drum, convening of the Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti meeting, adherence to the order of preference, drawing of lots wherever required, issuance of the allotment certificate in Form 49-F, and limiting the allotment area to 250 square metres. The 1975 amendment to Rule 115-N merely harmonised the Rules with the already existing statutory requirement of prior approval. Further, Para 49 of the Manual consolidates the above statutory and procedural requirements and reiterates the mandatory duties of the Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti, together with the supervisory control vested in the Assistant Collector during the entire process of earmarking and allotment of abadi sites. Accordingly, any patta issued without obtaining the prior approval of the Assistant Collector is void, illegal and unenforceable in law. 87. Cancellation of a Patta necessarily presupposes the prior existence of a lawfully executed and validly conferred allotment made by a competent authority strictly in accordance with the statutory scheme. In the present case, however, the documentary record clearly establishes that no such Patta was ever granted under the provisions of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act or the Rules framed thereunder, and the claim of the Petitioner rests only on an oral assertion, unsupported by any legal or documentary evidence. Moreover, in view of the statutory mandate introduced by the 1971 Amendment to Section 122-C, no Patta could legally have been issued without obtaining the previous approval of the Assistant Collector. This requirement is not directory but mandatory, and it constitutes a jurisdictional pre- condition for the lawful creation of any allotment. In the absence of any legal or documentary evidence, any purported allotment cannot, in any manner, be presumed to exist. This requirement is not directory but mandatory, and it constitutes a jurisdictional pre- condition for the lawful creation of any allotment. In the absence of any legal or documentary evidence, any purported allotment cannot, in any manner, be presumed to exist. The petitioner has failed to produce even a single document to support his claim, rendering the alleged allotment wholly baseless. The claim is entirely imaginary, made only with the intent of grabbing public land. Consequently, when no lawful Patta ever came into existence, the question of its cancellation does not arise. 88. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dina Nath v. State of U.P. & Ors (2010) 15 SCC 218 , has held that the Court cannot remain a silent spectator and is duty-bound to ensure that public property is not frittered away by unscrupulous persons. The Court must safeguard public land by ensuring that such illegal claims are thoroughly enquired into and that appropriate remedial action is taken. 89. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we, hereby, dismiss the Writ Petition for the following reasons, as enumerated hereinbelow: i. The question of cancellation presupposes the existence of a Patta lawfully issued by a competent authority under the statutory framework. In the present case, the record clearly establishes that no such Patta was ever granted under the relevant provisions. The petitioner relies solely on a receipt allegedly issued by the Gram Pradhan of Gram Sabha ‘Chanda’ and not Gram Sabha Khargapur Husariya, which is entirely devoid of statutory authority or procedural compliance. Such a document cannot, under any legal interpretation, be treated as a valid or subsisting Patta. ii. Prior approval of the Assistant Collector, as expressly mandated under Section 122-C of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, was a condition precedent for making any allotment of a housing site. Section 122-C, inserted by the U.P. Land Laws (Amendment) Act, 1971 and published in the Official Gazette on 22.08.1971, has unequivocally required such prior approval since its very inception in 1971. The contention that this requirement was introduced only in 1975 is wholly misconceived and untenable, as the statutory mandate has been in force since 22.08.1971 and cannot be overridden, diluted, or nullified by any subsequent rule or executive instruction. The contention that this requirement was introduced only in 1975 is wholly misconceived and untenable, as the statutory mandate has been in force since 22.08.1971 and cannot be overridden, diluted, or nullified by any subsequent rule or executive instruction. In fact, the later amendment of Rule 115- L was entirely in consonance and uniformity with Section 122- C, serving merely to bring the procedural rules in line with the substantive statutory requirement already in place. iii. The copy of the Parivar Register filed by the petitioner also fails to inspire confidence, as entries therein can be made only by the Secretary in accordance with the provisions of the U.P. Panchayat Raj (Maintenance of Family Registers) Rules, 1970. The said copy of the Parivar Register, produced by the petitioner, shows House No. 54 with the names of its occupants as Kaushal Kishore Shukla, son of Sant Baksh Shukla, Smt. Kanti, wife of Kaushal Kishore, and Rajesh Kumar and Rakesh Kumar, sons of Kaushal Kishore. The document is stated to have been issued on 11.09.1981, indicating the name of the Gram Sabha as Khargapur Husariya, the Nyay Panchayat as Nizampur Malhaur, and the village as Husariya, and it bears the name of Ram Bharose, Gram Pradhan, as the person who purportedly made the entries, though the Gram Pradhan had no authority whatsoever to make or authenticate entries in the Parivar Register under law. iv. It is a settled principle of law that when a statute prescribes a particular act to be done in a particular manner, it must be done in that manner alone or not at all. Every word of the statute must be given due effect. Over a century ago, in Taylor v. Taylor (1875) 1 Ch D 426, Jassell M.R. enunciated this rule, which has withstood the test of time and was reaffirmed by the Privy Council in Nazir Ahmed v. Emperor AIR 1936 PC 253 (2), and later by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shiv Bahadur Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 1954 SC 322 and Deep Chand v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1961 SC 1527 . v. The status of the petitioner over the property in question is nothing more than that of an encroacher, having no lawful title, right, or interest therein. The alleged receipts relied upon are devoid of evidentiary value, as they neither emanate from nor bear the approval of any competent authority. v. The status of the petitioner over the property in question is nothing more than that of an encroacher, having no lawful title, right, or interest therein. The alleged receipts relied upon are devoid of evidentiary value, as they neither emanate from nor bear the approval of any competent authority. In the absence of any valid Patta, lease, or allotment order, claim is wholly unauthorized, illegal, and without legal sanctity, constituting a mere act of encroachment upon government land. vi. The alleged allottee Kaushal Kishore Shukla, the father of the petitioner belonged to the General Category and, being an ex- army personnel, did not fall within any of the eligible categories prescribed for allotment under Section 122-C of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, namely, the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes, persons of the General Category living below the poverty line, agricultural labourers, or village artisans. Consequently, no allotment could have been legally made in his favour under the applicable rules. Therefore, the mere production of certain receipts or papers not issued or authenticated by any competent authority cannot establish that any valid patta ever existed in his name; hence, the question of cancellation of such patta does not arise at all. The action of the L.D.A. is, therefore, entirely justified and fully in accordance with law. vii. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently emphasized that fraud, concealment, and misrepresentation strike at the very integrity of the judicial process. A litigant invoking the jurisdiction of the Court must act with utmost candour and make full disclosure of all material facts. Withholding documents, suppressing truth, or presenting distorted facts amounts to fraud and attracts the maxim suppressio veri, expressio falsi. Any order or judgment procured through such deceit is a nullity in law. Given the equitable and discretionary nature of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, courts may reject a petition at the threshold when the litigant is guilty of suppression or misrepresentation. 90 . For all the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition stands dismissed