Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri Rahul Agarwal, Advocate, assisted by Ms. Monica Vaish, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Shivam Yadav, learned counsel for Kanpur Development Authority, Sri Rahul Jain, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Kunal Ravi Singh, learned counsel for respondents 5 to 8, Sri R.K.Mishra, Advocate for newly impleaded respondents 9 to 15 and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

2. This writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed by sole petitioner Pramod Kumar Gupta son of Late Puttu Lal Gupta. Initially, while filing present writ petition, petitioner had sought two main reliefs. Subsequently, by way of amendment application, allowed vide order dated 6.10.2017, prayer (A) has been deleted and prayer (B) has been amended and sole prayer (B), now remains on record, reads as under:

“Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to forthwith grant freehold the land bearing Plot No. 11, Block R-1, Scheme-4, Yojana Sisamau, Kanpur in favour of the petitioner and hand over the possession of the same to the petitioner in accordance with the decision of the State Government dated 27.8.2014 within a period of 3 months.”

3. The dispute in present writ petition relates to Plot No. 11, Block R-1, Scheme-4, Yojana Sisamau, Kanpur (hereinafter referred to as “disputed property”). A lease in respect of aforesaid disputed property was executed on 24.6.1952 in favour of M/s Jasodanandan Puttu Lal, a registered Partnership Firm registered under Indian Partnership Act, 1932 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1932”) for a period of 999 years. The area of land was 334 square yards. After the death of Puttu Lal in 1973, petitioner being his son, applied for mutation of leasehold rights of disputed property in his favour. The order for mutation was passed and disputed property was mutated in petitioner’s name on 19.10.2010. On the basis of a forged documents, one Mukesh Kumar Pandey, a Land-Mafia, intervened, claiming rights over disputed property. In respect of forged document, a Criminal Case No. 03/73 of 2005 (Mukesh Pandey v. S.K.Jaiswal, Joint Secretary, Kanpur Development Authority, Kanpur) is pending in the Court of Additional District Judge, Court No. 13, Kanpur. At the instance of Mukesh Kumar Pandey, mutation of disputed property made in faovur of petitioner was cancelled by Vice-Chairman, Kanpur Development Authority, Kanpur (hereinafter referred to as “KDA”) on 30.11.2010. Petitioner made several representations but in vain. Petitioner then filed Writ Petition No. 16168 of 2011 (Pramod Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P. and others) challenging order dated 30.11.2010. vide judgment dated 10.10.2011, order dated 30.11.2010 and consequential communication dated 13.12.2010 were quashed observing that dispute of title over disputed property, claimed by respondent 5 in the said writ petition, based on a Will, is pending adjudication in a Court of law, hence, so long as rights of parties are not decided, KDA ought not to have create cloud on the title of petitioner to own and possess disputed property. Ultimately, in respect of disputed property, mutation was restored in the name of petitioner.

4. Petitioner then deposited requisite amount and prayed for making disputed property “freehold” and also moved representations dated 19.11.2011 and 18.1.2012. Petitioner also claimed delivery of possession of disputed property to him. Petitioner pleaded that disputed property, presently, is in possession of illegal occupants and this fact is also known to respondents KDA but they are not taking any steps for eviction of unauthorized occupants from disputed property. Petitioner came to know that KDA is proposing to impose or demand non-construction charges though possession of disputed property was never handed over to petitioner, hence by representation dated 27.2.2012, petitioner requested not to charge non-construction charges. Secretary, KDA forwarde