Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW
SANGEETA CHANDRA, BRIJ RAJ SINGH, JJ.
Rakesh Kumar Shukla – Appellant
Versus
Lucknow Development Authority Thru. its Chairman , Lko. and others – Respondent
WRIT - C No. - 4177 of 2024
Decided On : 09-12-2025
Key Points: - The judgment emphasizes that prior approval of the Assistant Collector is mandatory for housing site allotments under Section 122-C, and allotments without this approval are void. (!) (!) (!) - It holds that misrepresentation or concealment amounts to fraud and can lead to dismissal of petitions and nullification of orders obtained through such means. (!) (!) (!) - It sets out the statutory framework including Section 122-C, Rules 115-L, 115-N, 115-O, and Manual Para 49, detailing lists (Form 49-D, 49-E, Form 49-F), public announcements, drawing of lots, and area limits (250 sqm). (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) - It notes that the 1975 Rule amendments harmonized with the substantive provision, reaffirming the supremacy of the 1971 amendment establishing prior approval. (!) (!) (!) - The case analyzes specific encumbrances and survey findings showing land fell on Khasra 55, not 88, affecting legitimacy of alleged patta and allotment. (!) (!) (!) (!) - The decision ultimately dismisses the writ petition, upholding that patta/claims lacking valid statutory basis and evidence are not enforceable. (!) (!)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition challenges allotment and legality. (Para 1) |
| 2. arguments presented by both parties. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 3. examination and review of pleadings. (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63) |
| 4. procedural requirements for allotment. (Para 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68) |
| 5. governing principles detailed for allotments. (Para 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79) |
| 6. fraud implications in judicial proceedings. (Para 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 84 , 85) |
| 7. conclusion regarding the dismissal of the petition. (Para 86 , 87 , 88 , 89 , 90) |
Judgment :
Sangeeta Chandra,J.
This judgment has been divided into the following Sections tofacilitate analysis:
| A. | The Challenge | Para 1 |
| B. | Rival Submissions | Para 2 to 31 |
| C. | Examination of pleadings by the Court | Para 32 to 68 |
| D. | Statutory Provisions | Para 69 to 74 |
| E. | Governing Principles | Para 75 |
| F. | Analysis of Petitioner’s Claim | Para 76 – 78 |
| G. | Case laws on the Subject | Para 79 |
| H. | Fraud through Misrepresentation and Concealment | Para 80 – 85 |
| I. | Conclusion | Para 86- 90 |
A- The Challenge
1. Petitioner has prayed for quashing of order dated 30.04.2024 passed by the Chairman Lucknow Development Authority (hereinafter referred as L.D.A.) in relation to plot no. 1/205, and has also prays for a writ in the nature of mandamus, commanding the respondent not to allot plot no. 1/205, Vineet Khand belonging to the petitioner to anyone else.
B- Rival Submissions
2. The case of the petitioner as has been put by Sri Anshuman Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner is that his father Kaushal Kishore Shukla had earlier filed Writ Petition No.8426 (M/B) of 2009 in relation to House No.A-1/205, Vineet Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow challenging the order dated 12.08.2009 passed by the Lucknow Development Authority. The said writ petition was dismissed for want of prosecution on 07.03.2024. The petitioner has filed a recall application on 11.03.2024, which is pending for consideration, in which counsel for private respondent got an adjournment on 26.04.2024. It is also stated that Writ Petition No.1970 (M/B) of 2001 was filed by the father of private respondent, Sri V.D. Keshari against the Lucknow Development Authority and this writ petition was clubbed with Writ Petition No.8426 (M/B) of 2009 and was decided by this Court vide order dated 07.03.2024 directing the Lucknow Development Authority to consider the representation of Vimal Chand Keshari, who had been substituted on account of death of his father V. D. Keshari, who died in the meantime.
3. It is also the case of the petitioner that his father Kaushal Kishore Shukla was an ex-Army person and one plot of land in Gram Sabha, Khargapur Husariya admeasuring 8 Biswas was given to him by the Gram Pradhan by executing 2 pattas on 21.12.1973 and 02.09.1981 respectively. The plot in question i.e. 1/205, Vineet Khand, Gomti Nagar has been developed after the Lucknow Development Authority (hereinafter referred as L.D.A.) has taken over the Gram Sabha land of Village Khargapur Husariya. It has been stated that petitioner's father Late Kaushal Kishore Shukla constructed a house for his family, which was numbered as House No.54 of Village Husariya and the name of the family members of Late Kaushal Kishore Shukla were shown in Pariwar Register of Gram Sabha, Khargapur Husariya. The Gram Sabha had passed a resolution in favour of Late Kaushal Kishore Shukla as he, being a Havaldar in Indian Army, had fought in the Indo- Pakistan War in the year 1971 and had been awarded a Special Service Medal with clasp while serving in Indian Peace Keeping Force in Sri Lanka. It has been stated in the writ petition that the house constructed by the father of the petitioner was assessed by the Nagar Mahapalika in the year 1992 and the Nagar Nigam gave it as House No. 1/
Mandatory prior approval from the Assistant Collector is essential for land allotments under Section 122-C of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, making unauthorized claims invalid.
The exercise of statutory authority must be within a reasonable period, and fraud vitiates all proceedings.
The court emphasized the necessity of transparency and adherence to established procedures in public land allotments to uphold constitutional rights.
The principles of natural justice require that an allotment cannot be cancelled without due process, including notice and an opportunity to be heard.
The court established that residents can challenge land allotments as 'persons aggrieved' under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, emphasizing the importance of public interest in suc....
The Divisional Commissioner had the power to examine and cancel the transfer of land, and the petitioner-Society had no legal right to claim allotment of land based on the Trust's decision.
The failure to establish lawful possession and the invalidity of the allotment order led to the dismissal of the appeal, emphasizing jurisdictional limits in civil suits regarding land allotments.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
