ISHT DEO GUPTA Vs. STATE OF U.P,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Court is convened via video conferencing.

(2.) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is directed against an order of Mr. J.K. Dwivedi, the learned Additional District Judge, Court No. 16, Kanpur Nagar dtd. 22/9/2021, dismissing Misc. Appeal No. 54 of 2019 and affirming an order/notice issued by the Assistant Secretary, Kanpur Development Authority, Kanpur Nagar cancelling the petitioner's allotment of a plot of land, with a direction for refund of the advance consideration deposited towards execution of a lease of the said plot.

(3.) The facts giving rise to this petition are as follows : One Rakesh Kumar Gupta was allotted a house bearing House No. 6, H.I.G., Block W-1, Saket Nagar, Kanpur Nagar under a self-financing scheme floated by the Kanpur Development Authority, Kanpur Nagar[1] in accordance with the allotment made vide Allotment No. 26 (xxx xxx xxx)dtd. 7/10/1983. It is claimed that Rakesh Gupta deposited the entire consideration for execution of the lease deed, being a sum of Rs.1.00 lacs relating to the said house, but the deed was not executed. However, in consequence of the allotment made, possession was delivered to Rakesh Gupta over the house in dispute on 23/5/1984. Rakesh Gupta resided continuously in the house in dispute based on the letter of allotment, together with delivery of possession made to him by the Authority. Rakesh Gupta was issueless. He executed a unregistered Will dtd. 29/12/1995 in the petitioner's favour, bequeathing him the house in dispute. The petitioner is Rakesh Gupta's nephew (brother's son). During his lifetime, Rakesh Gupta was issued with a notice by the Authority, asking him to deposit a further sum of Rs.1,98,170.00. Rakesh Gupta challenged the said additional demand by means of a writ petition before this Court, being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 245 of 1999, which was disposed of by an order dtd. 6/1/1999, granting liberty to the petitioner to represent his claim before the Authority, who were put under a direction to decide the petitioner's claim within a period of two months of production of a certified copy of that order. It is the petitioner's case that Rakesh Gupta served the said order upon the Authority, whereupon, he was issued a further notice, requiring him to deposit an escalated sum of Rs.4,86,620.00. [1] for short "the Authority"