The main legal point established in the judgment is that disputes involving property rights and substantial reliefs must be adjudicated in a civil court based on evidence, and the special remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should not be used to decide such disputes.

JUDGMENT :

OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J.

1. Heard Sri Vishwajeet Rai, Advocate holding brief of Sri Kripa Shankar Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State authorities and Sri Kumar Ayush, learned counsel representing the Lucknow Development Authority.

2. By instituting these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-Kripa Shanker Singh has prayed that the opposite party nos. 1 to 4 may be directed for registry of House No. M/213/G, L.D.A. Colony, Kanpur Road Yojna, Lucknow in his favour. Further, the petitioner has also prayed that the registry of the said house may not be done in favour of opposite party no. 7. Although the Senior Superintendent of Police, Lucknow and the Station House Officer, Police Station Ashiyana, District Lucknow have been arrayed as opposite party nos. 5 and 6 respectively, however, no prayer has been made by the petitioner against them.

3. The case set up by the petitioner in the writ petition is that one Smt. Kavita Singh was issued a letter dated 22nd January, 1992 informing her that her application dated 03.01.1992 was accepted by the Lucknow Development Authority for allotment of Plot No. A/863/I, L.D.A. Colony, Kanpur Road Yojna, Lucknow. It seems thereafter the said Smt. Kavita Singh has applied for alternate plot to the Lucknow Development Authority, which was allowed vide an order dated 13.09.1996 and as such an alternate property being M/213/G, was allotted to said Smt. Kavita Singh for and in place of the earlier plot in the same locality. The petitioner has relied on a document dated 23.09.1996 issued by L.D.A. informing the said Kavita Singh that the petitioner’s request and affidavit have been accepted by them and as such the plot allotted was allowed to be transferred to the petitioner on the same terms and conditions. It is the further case of the petitioner that subsequently a “Hire purchase agreement” was executed in his favour by L.D.A. on 25.09.1996 for the said property number M/213/G for a consideration of Rs. 2,63,900/- on hire purchase basis and pursuant to which he was also issued a possession letter dated 25.09.1996 for the said property. The tenure for the said hire purchase agreement was 20 years and it was expected that L.D.A. would execute the sale deed for the said plot after the completion of the said tenure of hire purchase agreement.

4. It is the further case of the petitioner that the actual possession was given to him by the L.D.A. on 27.09.1996 by the Engineer concerned. The petitioner relied on an unverified computer sheet purported to be a report dated 15.10.2005, estimated for registry by the L.D.A. depicting a payment of Rs. 51,700/- made against the property in question and narrating the installment information relating to the said property. The learned counsel also relied on an internal register/document purported to be of L.D.A. wherein name of the petitioner is reflected at serial no. 61 and various payments to have been made, although dates of payments are mentioned in the said extract of register but no dates have been mentioned therein. The learned counsel referring to the said documents has argued that since the name of the petitioner finds mentions in the records of the L.D.A. he should be construed as the only rightful owner of the property M/213/G, L.D.A. Colony, Kanpur Road Yojna, Lucknow.

5. The learned counsel continuing with his arguments vociferously went on to submit and rely on several documents relating to the raising and payment of house tax, water tax and electricity bills raised by the concerned Department and paid by the petitioner over a passage of time to further his argument relating to the petitioner being the rightful allottee of the property in question. Further, an internal document of the L.D.A. relating to a list of plot/building numbers and the allotees name, for which it was proposed to open a duplicate application for registration purpose as on 23.12.2008 has also been r