Tung Nath Tiwari vs U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Thru

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Puneet Chandra, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2.

2. This petition has been filed with the following prayers :- "A. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents to execute a sale deed in favour of the petitioner with respect to the vacant adjacent land to House No.5/19 [18-40] Obri Scheme, Barabanki at the rate mentioned in letter dated 10.07.98. B. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned letter dated 18.11.2025 issued by Respondent No.2 annexed as Annexure No.1 to this petition."

3. It is the case of the petitioner that the daughter of the petitioner was allotted House No.5/19 [18/40] at the Obri Scheme of respondent No.1 at Barabanki by an allotment letter dated 30.09.1994. Adjacent to House No.5/19 [18/40], some additional land was situated which was not part of any plots carved out by the respondent No.1. Ms. Sarita Tiwari made an application to the Housing Commissioner on

13.01.1996 to allot the said additional land in her name on payment of the prevalent charges at that time. Since no action was taken by the respondent No.1, she made a second application on 19.06.1996 2 WRIC No. 11948 of 2025 requesting the authorities once again to accede to her request. On

18.07.1996, Ms. Sarita Tiwari sold the house to the petitioner, her father, through a registered sale deed. Thereafter, the petitioner made an application on 02.08.1996 requesting the Housing Commissioner to allot the abovementioned adjacent land in his name instead of his daughter. He also submitted a no-objection certificate from the erstwhile owner, who was his daughter.

4. After a long wait of over two years, respondent No.1 issued a letter dated 10.07.1998, whereby the petitioner was informed that the vacant adjacent land was being allotted in his name. However, the charges he was supposed to pay were at the current rate prevalent in

5. The petitioner submitted an application requesting respondent No.2 to allot the land at the original rate, i.e., the rates prevalent in 1996 when the original house was allotted. When no action was taken, the petitioner served a legal notice and filed a complaint before the District Consumer Forum, Barabanki on 16.01.1999 seeking directions to the respondents to allot land adjoining his house to him at the rate prevalent in 1996. The District Consumer Forum dismissed the complaint of the petitioner on 30.08.1999. The petitioner approached the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as "SCDRC"). The SCDRC, by a majority decision on 21.10.2008, dismissed the appeal and directed the respondents to execute the sale deed in favour of the petitioner at the rates prevalent at the time of allotment order dated 10.07.1998.

6. The minority order dismissed the appeal simpliciter. The petitioner filed an execution petition before the District Consumer Forum, Barabanki in 2015. The execution application was dismissed on 25.02.2025. The petitioner filed Execution Appeal No.13 of 2025 before the SCDRC, which was dismissed on merits by the SCDRC on

30.04.2025. Against such order, the petitioner filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which was dismissed as withdrawn by an order dated 25.08.2025 with liberty to the petitioner to assail the impugned order before the appropriate forum. The petitioner has, however, now decided not to assail the order and to pay the charges mentioned in the letter dated 10.07.1998. 3 WRIC No. 11948 of 2025

7. The petitioner had, in fact, during the pendency of the execution application, made such a request on 26.10.2024 to the respondents. However, no reply was received from the respondents.

8. The request of the petitioner was rejected by respondent No.2 by the impugned letter dated 18.11.2025. Hence, this writ petition has been filed.

9. The grounds for challenge as raised in the writ petition for the order dated 18.11.2025 and as orally argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is no such provision in paragraph 60 of the Regulations of 2016, which has been quoted in the impugned order. The additional prayer made in the writ petition is for the respondents to execute the sale deed in favour of the petitioner at the rate mentioned in the letter dated 10.07.1998 for the vacant adjacent land of House No.5/19 Obri Scheme, Barabanki.

10. Shri Puneet Chandra, learned counsel for the respondents has raised an objection regarding the writ petition having been filed by the petitioner. He has stated that originally the order dated 10.07.1998 was challenged by the petitioner as aforesaid and when he failed to get any relief, he had approached this Court in a writ petition, which writ petition was also dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to challenge such order. the petitioner has

11. Now, taken an about-turn and wants compliance of the order/letter dated 10.07.1998 and the main reason for such prayer is evident from the perusal of the last paragraph of the impugned letter dated 18.11.2025. It is evident therefrom that at the time of allotment of the house to the daughter of the petitioner, the house in question was constructed on 42.35 Sq. mtrs. of land. However, on 31.10.2006, the petitioner sold off the land to Smt. Sushila Devi W/o Manoj Kumar adjacent to the said house and the total area admeasuring 45.12 sq. mtrs, which includes the area on which the house is built and also the adjacent land, has been sold off by the petitioner.

12. It has been argued by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that the insistence of the petitioner to direct the respondents to execute a sale deed in terms of the letter dated 4 WRIC No. 11948 of 2025

10.07.1998 is only because he has played fraud not only upon the Awas Vikas Parishad but also Smt. Sushila Devi W/o Manoj Kumar. The EWS house that was allotted to the petitioner was built on 42.35 Sq.meters of land. The petitioner has sold off 45.12 Sq.meters to Smt. Sushila Devi.

13. The adjacent land, as per the Records of the Awas Vikas Parishad, is admeasing 178.33 Sq.meters.

14. We have gone through the Guidelines/ Regulations of 2016 and Paragraph-60 thereof and find that the case of the petitioner is not covered under the Guidelines for allotment of extra land in any manner. He is not the original allottee. His daughter was the original allottee. He is a subsequent purchaser. He has also sold off the house to Smt. Sushila Devi.

15. We do not find any good ground to show interference in the matter.

16. The writ petition stands dismissed. December 12, 2025 N.PAL (Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) (Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.) NARESH PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Puneet Chandra, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2.

2. This petition has been filed with the following prayers :- "A. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents to execute a sale deed in favour of the petitioner with respect to the vacant adjacent land to House No.5/19 [18-40] Obri Scheme, Barabanki at the rate mentioned in letter dated 10.07.98. B. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned letter dated 18.11.2025 issued by Respondent No.2 annexed as Annexure No.1 to this petition."

3. It is the case of the petitioner that the daughter of the petitioner was allotted House No.5/19 [18/40] at the Obri Scheme of respondent No.1 at Barabanki by an allotment letter dated 30.09.1994. Adjacent to House No.5/19 [18/40], some additional land was situated which was not part of any plots carved out by the respondent No.1. Ms. Sarita Tiwari made an application to the Housing Commissioner on

13.01.1996 to allot the said additional land in her name on payment of the prevalent charges at that time. Since no action was taken by the respondent No.1, she made a second application on 19.06.1996 2 WRIC No. 11948 of 2025 requesting the authorities once again to accede to her request. On

18.07.1996, Ms. Sarita Tiwari sold the house to the petitioner, her father, through a registered sale deed. Thereafter, the petitioner made an application on 02.08.1996 requesting the Housing Commissioner to allot the abovementioned adjacent land in his name instead of his daughter. He also submitted a no-objection certificate from the erstwhile owner, who was his daughter.

4. After a long wait of over two years, respondent No.1 issued a letter dated 10.07.1998, whereby the petitioner was informed that the vacant adjacent land was being allotted in his name. However, the charges he was supposed to pay were at the current rate prevalent in

5. The petitioner submitted an application requesting respondent No.2 to allot the land at the original rate, i.e., the rates prevalent in 1996 when the original house was allotted. When no action was taken, the petitioner served a legal notice and filed a complaint before the District Consumer Forum, Barabanki on 16.01.1999 seeking directions to the respondents to allot land adjoining his house to him at the rate prevalent in 1996. The District Consumer Forum dismissed the complaint of the petitioner on 30.08.1999. The petitioner approached the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as "SCDRC"). The SCDRC, by a majority decision on 21.10.2008, dismissed the appeal and directed the respondents to execute the sale deed in favour of the petitioner at the rates prevalent at the time of allotment order dated 10.07.1998.

6. The minority order dismissed the appeal simpliciter. The petitioner filed an execution petition before the District Consumer Forum, Barabanki in 2015. The execution application was dismissed on 25.02.2025. The petitioner filed Execution Appeal No.13 of 2025 before the SCDRC, which was dismissed on merits by the SCDRC on

30.04.2025. Against such order, the petitioner filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which was dismissed as withdrawn by an order dated 25.08.2025 with liberty to the petitioner to assail the impugned order before the appropriate forum. The petitioner has, however, now decided not to assail the order and to pay the charges mentioned in the letter dated 10.07.1998. 3 WRIC No. 11948 of 2025

7. The petitioner had, in fact, during the pendency of the execution application, made such a request on 26.10.2024 to the respondents. However, no reply was received from the respondents.

8. The request of the petitioner was rejected by respondent No.2 by the impugned letter dated 18.11.2025. Hence, this writ petition has been filed.

9. The grounds for challenge as raised in the writ petition for the order dated 18.11.2025 and as orally argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is no such provision in paragraph 60 of the Regulations of 2016, which has been quoted in the impugned order. The additional prayer made in the writ petition is for the respondents to execute the sale deed in favour of the petitioner at the rate mentioned in the letter dated 10.07.1998 for the vacant adjacent land of House No.5/19 Obri Scheme, Barabanki.

10. Shri Puneet Chandra, learned counsel for the respondents has raised an objection regarding the writ petition having been filed by the petitioner. He has stated that originally the order dated 10.07.1998 was challenged by the petitioner as aforesaid and when he failed to get any relief, he had approached this Court in a writ petition, which writ petition was also dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to challenge such order. the petitioner has

11. Now, taken an about-turn and wants compliance of the order/letter dated 10.07.1998 and the main reason for such prayer is evident from the perusal of the last paragraph of the impugned letter dated 18.11.2025. It is evident therefrom that at the time of allotment of the house to the daughter of the petitioner, the house in question was constructed on 42.35 Sq. mtrs. of land. However, on 31.10.2006, the petitioner sold off the land to Smt. Sushila Devi W/o Manoj Kumar adjacent to the said house and the total area admeasuring 45.12 sq. mtrs, which includes the area on which the house is built and also the adjacent land, has been sold off by the petitioner.

12. It has been argued by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that the insistence of the petitioner to direct the respondents to execute a sale deed in terms of the letter dated 4 WRIC No. 11948 of 2025

10.07.1998 is only because he has played fraud not only upon the Awas Vikas Parishad but also Smt. Sushila Devi W/o Manoj Kumar. The EWS house that was allotted to the petitioner was built on 42.35 Sq.meters of land. The petitioner has sold off 45.12 Sq.meters to Smt. Sushila Devi.

13. The adjacent land, as per the Records of the Awas Vikas Parishad, is admeasing 178.33 Sq.meters.

14. We have gone through the Guidelines/ Regulations of 2016 and Paragraph-60 thereof and find that the case of the petitioner is not covered under the Guidelines for allotment of extra land in any manner. He is not the original allottee. His daughter was the original allottee. He is a subsequent purchaser. He has also sold off the house to Smt. Sushila Devi.

15. We do not find any good ground to show interference in the matter.

16. The writ petition stands dismissed. December 12, 2025 N.PAL (Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) (Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.) NARESH PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench