Hon’ble Devi Prasad Singh, J.—The petitioner, an allottee of a plot by the Lucknow Development Authority Lucknow (in short LDA), has preferred the instant writ petition being aggrieved by the decision in not entertaining petitioner’s application for sanction of map for construction of house over the plot in question broadly on the ground that the place in question was earmarked as park. Brief facts with regard to controversy in question, are discussed hereinafter.

2. In pursuance of advertisement published by the LDA, the petitioner had applied for allotment of a plot. Application submitted by the petitioner in accordance with Rules, was accepted and the LDA allotted Plot No.D-4/223-A in Vishal Khand Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, in terms of layout plan. In consequence thereof, the petitioner deposited the entire cost of the plot and thereafter LDA executed a registered sale-deed of the plot in question. Physical possession was also given to the petitioner of the plot in question by the LDA on 15.2.1997. Thereafter, the petitioner constructed its boundary wall. A copy of the sale-deed executed by the LDA dated 25.6.1996, has been annexed as Annexure No.1 to the writ petition which shows that in lieu of payment of Rs.74,670.12 P., the sale-deed was executed. Alongwith the sale-deed, part of layout plan containing the plot in question has also been attached indicating the area to the tune of 211.65 sq. m.

3. After obtaining physical possession of the land in question, the petitioner submitted house map for sanction to the LDA on 28.5.2004. The application moved by the petitioner for sanction of house map, has been rejected on the ground that it cannot be considered since the plot allotted to the petitioner, is not the part of the layout plan. A copy of the order dated 5.6.2004 passed by the competent authority of LDA, has been filed as Annexure No.3 to the writ petition. After receipt of petitioner’s representation by another letter dated 26.7.2006, contained in Annexure No.8 to the writ petition, again the petitioner was informed that the plot in question being not the part of the layout plan, the Board took a decision to cancel the allotment and matter has been referred to the vigilance inquiry. Similar communication has been made by the letter dated 21.1.2009 contained in Annexure No.9 to the writ petition, by the Secretary, LDA.

4. While filing the writ petition, the petitioner further took plea that in adjoining plot No.D-4/223-B and D-4/223-C construction has already been raised by the respective owners in pursuance of map sanctioned by the LDA and the occupants are residing there since last 8 years with all civic amenities provided by the LDA and with regard to owner of another plot No.D-4/223-H, located in the same line, the occupant has constructed house on sanctioned map and residing since last ten years. Thus, a plea has further been set up by the petitioner that in the same vicinity, the map of other allottees has been sanctioned and the occupants are residing since last more than a decade.

5. A defence has been set up by the LDA that the plot in question falls in an area marked for construction of park. Attention has been invited by the petitioner’s counsel to the letter of the Lok Ayukt dated 1.6.2006 which has been filed as Annexure No.RA-1 to the rejoinder-affidavit which indicates that the Plot No.D-04/223 in the same vicinity has been allotted in an area reserved for ‘’future planning’. The Lok Ayukt interfered on the application moved by Rita Agarwal. Thus, before the Lok Ayukt, the LDA has not set up a case that the vicinity in question, has been marked for park. Rather, defence was set up that it was marked for ‘’future planning’. LDA further wrote a letter that the petitioner may withdraw the amount alongwith interest or he may be allotted another plot in other area on current rate. Though during the course of hearing, this Court directed to provide information with regard to alternative availability of plo