Allahabad High Court
SMT. LOKESHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed.
Summary
The petitioner, Smt. Lokesh, was allotted Plot No. VL-51 by the Uttar Pradesh State Industrial Development Authority (UPSIDA) which was later cancelled on 10 February 2025 on the ground that the land had been re‑allotted to other tenure‑holders. The petitioner challenged the cancellation and the subsequent advertisement inviting other allottees to a Mega E‑Auction, seeking certiorari to quash the advertisement and the cancellation order, and mandamus directing UPSIDA to allocate an alternative plot. UPSIDA contended that the petitioner had already received a refund with interest under a consumer forum order, and that the amount had been encashed, thereby extinguishing any further claim. The Court observed that even if the refund was not under the consumer forum order, it was paid pursuant to UPSIDA’s own letter dated 10 February 2025, and the petitioner had withdrawn the amount, leaving no right to participate in the auction. Consequently, the Court found the writ petition to lack merit and dismissed it, directing the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum for any grievance regarding the interest paid.
Issues considered
- Whether the cancellation of the plot allotment to the petitioner is legally valid.
- Whether the advertisement for the Mega E‑Auction can be quashed by a writ of certiorari.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to mandamus directing UPSIDA to allocate an alternative plot.
- Whether the petitioner retains any right to participate in the auction after receiving the refund with interest.
Subjects
- industrial land allotment
- auction
- certiorari
- mandamus
- administrative law
- property rights
- consumer forum
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 42970 of 2025
Smt. Lokesh
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Chandra Bhan Gupta, Harsh Gupta
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Ambrish Shukla, Anuj Pratap Singh,
C.S.C.
Court No. - 29
HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J.
HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the
State and Sri Ambrish Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the Uttar
Pradesh State Industrial Development Authority.
2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:
"i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned
advertisement dated 24.11.2025 with the name of Mega E-Auction issued by
Respondent no. 2.
ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned
order dated 10.02.2025 passed by respondent no. 4.
iii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the
respondent no. 2, 3 and 4 to allot a similar alternative plot to the petitioner situated at
Industrial Area, District - Bulandshahr or any other plot of larger area available in
same locality in lieu of the allotted plot, i.e. plot no. VL-51 and to accept the amount
as per policy."
3. The petitioner was allotted a plot being Plot No. VL-51. This allotment of
the plot was cancelled on 10.02.2025 on the pretext that the land which was
acquired for the Uttar Pradesh State Industrial Development Authority
(hereinafter referred to as "UPSIDA") was no longer property of UPSIDA
as it had in the consolidation proceeding been allotted to the other tenure-
holders. Thereafter, when the petitioner came across a particular
WRIC No. 42970 of 2025
2
advertisement wherein the allottees, who had not been given possession,
were invited for participating in an auction, then the petitioner aggrieved by
that invitation of other allottees has approached this Court.
4. Sri Ambrish Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the UPSIDA, has
submitted that the petitioner in fact as per the order dated 10.02.2025 has
been given a 6% interest over the amount which he had deposited in
pursuance of the order of the Consumer Forum in complaint no. 67/2023. He
further submits that the cheque has also been encashed by the petitioner.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that
even if the amount of Rs. 11,41,315.00/- which was given to the petitioner
on 05.02.2025 was not in pursuance of the order passed by the consumer
forum, it was an amount which was paid to the petitioner in pursuance of the
letter dated 10.02.2025. The withdrawal of amount by the petitioner is not
disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner
has no right left to get an opportunity to participate in the auction which he
desires to participate as per the communication dated 01.07.2025.
6. For all the reasons stated above, we are of the view that the writ petition
lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
7. If the petitioner is still aggrieved by the interest amount which has been
paid, he may approach such forum as might be available to him in
accordance with law.
(Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Siddhartha Varma,J.)
September 29, 2026
M.S. Ansari
Digitally signed by :-
MOHD SAQIB ANSARI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…