By the Court.—Affidavits have been exchanged between the parties.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. These two writ petitions have been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution with the common reliefs, hence, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, they are being decided by this common Judgment and order at admission stage.

4. Admittedly, the petitioners have been allotted plots/land by the Lucknow Development Authority and U.P. Housing Board, Lucknow. After allotment of the plots/land, the petitioners have applied for sanction of maps. The Lucknow Development Authority and the U.P. Housing Board Board, Lucknow have sanctioned the maps of the petitioners in accordance to rules and thereafter, the petitioners visited their sites for starting construction work. They were stopped to raise constructions by certain persons including the Members of Kissan Union and some villagers of the vicinity. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by filing the instant writ petitions.

5. Learned counsel for the Development Authorities (Lucknow Development Authority as well as U.P. Housing Board, Lucknow) do not dispute that the petitioners are the lawful allottees of the plots and their maps have been sanctioned for construction of permanent structure over the land allotted to them.

6. In pursuance of the order passed by this Court, Sri J. Ravindir Goud, Senior Superintendent of Police, Lucknow, has filed an affidavit and has brought on record that seven persons have submitted the complaints with the grievance that they have been stopped to raise constructions by the Members of Bhartiya Kissan Union. These seven persons are namely, Sri Susheel Kumar, Sri Janki Prasad, Sri Mahesh Pal, Sri Ajay Kumar Saxena, Sri Jamal Ahmad, Sri Himanshu Gupta and again Sri Himanshu Gupta.

7. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Lucknow has pointed out that Members of the Bhartiya Kissan Union have stopped the lawful allottees to raise constructions over their plots. In some of the cases, matter has been settled, but, in other cases, the dispute is still under discussion.

8. Sri Anurag Yadav, District Magistrate, Lucknow has also filed an affidavit pointing out similar problems where the allottees have been prevented to raise constructions over their land which have been allotted to them by the Development Authorities or the Housing Board.

9. On the other hand, Mohd. Abid Ali, learned counsel appearing as an intervenor in Writ Petition No. 10533 (M/B) of 2013 submits that the plots allotted to the petitioners are water body, reservoirs or pond and they should be maintained in the same capacity as they exist, by the development authorities in view of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case in Hinch Lal Tewari v. Kamla Devi and others, AIR 2001 SC 3215.

10. So far as the argument advanced by Sri Abid Ali, learned counsel for the intervenor that the development authorities cannot allot the plots while preparing the lay out plans of the area which is a water body reservoir or a pond in terms of revenue record in view of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Hinch Lal Tewari (Supra) is concerned, seems to be correct. It is the duty of the developments authorities to maintain them in the same form as a part of public recreation centres or picnic spot.

11. Lucknow Development Authority, Lucknow while filing the Counter-affidavit has denied that the plots allotted to the petitioners of the writ petition No. 10533(M/B) of 2013 are water reservoir or ponds which has been refuted by Sri Abid Ali, learned counsel for the intervenor by filing an affidavit. Whether the plots allotted to the petitioners are water reservoirs or ponds, is a disputed question of fact which requires thorough probe.

12. Now, coming to first limb of argument of learned counsel for the the petitioners that lawful allottees have been prevented by Members of a ce