The principles of natural justice require that an allotment cannot be cancelled without due process, including notice and an opportunity to be heard.

JUDGMENT :

(Brij Raj Singh, J.)

1. Heard Sri J.K. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Shobhit Mohan Shukla, learned counsel for opposite parties no.1, 2 and 3, Sri Neerav Chitravanshi, learned counsel for opposite party no.5 and Sri Shishir Pradhan, who appears for Smt. Shraddha Singh, who was allowed to intervene in the matter by this Court vide order dated 21.01.2016.

Prayers:-

2. This petition has been filed with the following main prayers:-

"(i) Issue a Writ. Order or Direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties nos.1 to 3 to deliver the possession over the Plot No.B-1/214 Viram Khand Gomti Nagar Scheme, Lucknow after executing the sale deed in favour of the petitioner or to allot any alternative plot of same size, location and valuation and further they will be directed to pay atleast 10% interest on the amount deposited by the petitioner upto date and heavy costs upon the opposite parties nos.1 to 3 be also imposed

(ii) Issue a further Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the re-allotment of the plot in question B-1/214 Viram Khand. Gomti Nagar Scheme, Lucknow, in favour of opposite party no.4 made by opposite parties nos.1 to 3 after summoning the allotment letter from opposite parties nos.1 to 3."

Facts:-

3. It is the case of the petitioner that he was allotted Plot No.B-1/214, Viram Khand, Gomti Nagar Scheme, Lucknow through Lottery held on 06.09.1985 by the Lucknow Development Authority vide Allotment Letter dated 04.10.1985. The allotment letter indicates that total price of the plot was Rs.50,400/-, against which Rs.12,100/- was paid by the petitioner and the remaining amount of Rs.38,300/- was to be paid in installments upto 06.12.1985.

4. It is also the case of the petitioner that he had deposited the entire amount of Rs.52,464/- through cash in different banks by way of Challan forms duly received by the banks. However, possession of the plot in question was not given to the petitioner and the registration of the plot was also not done in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner approached the competent authority of the Lucknow Development Authority by moving several representations. Under the Right to Information Act, information was furnished on 26.06.2012 through Sri Shailendra Srivastava, the relative of the petitioner, in which it is mentioned that plot in question has been allotted to one Sri S.R. Arya as per the LDA record and sale deed was also executed on 04.04.2004 and the possession was delivered to him on 04.07.2004. The petitioner has made averments in the writ petition that plot in question was never cancelled and no notice was ever given to him prior to cancellation of the plot in question.

5. It is further submitted that once the plot was allotted and the petitioner had paid the requisite amount, the same could not have been allotted to Sri S.R. Arya that too without providing an opportunity of hearing.

6. The Lucknow Development Authority has filed counter affidavit on 09.10.2012, in which it has been specifically mentioned that plot in question was allotted to the petitioner on 06.09.1985, but in terms of the allotment, the petitioner was required to pay a total sum of Rs 50,400/-approximately, whereas the petitioner has deposited only a sum of Rs.12,100/- within the time provided and the remaining amount of Rs.38,300/- was not deposited by him within time limit prescribed in the allotment letter dated 04.10.1985. As per the allotment letter dated 04.10.1985, it is evident that the amount was deposited after the lapse of three years i.e. in the year 1988. It is submitted that the petitioner failed to fulfill the conditions of the contract, therefore, the plot in question was allotted to Sri S.R. Arya. It is further mentioned that after lapse of 24 years, this writ petition has been filed that too without explaining the delay and laches. Paragraph-5 of the counter affidavit is relevant, which is quoted below:-

"5. That the contents of paragraph 2 o