Allahabad High Court
Babloo vs State Of U.P. And Another on 23 September, 2025
Author: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:171416-DB
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 30113 of 2025
Babloo
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
:
Vashishtha Tiwari
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
C.S.C., Dharmendra Singh Chauhan
Court No. - 29
HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J.
HON'BLE ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J.
1. Heard Sri Vashistha Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Devesh Vikram, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Sri Abhimanyu Singh, Advocate holding brief of Sri D.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the Mathura Vrindavan Development Authority (in short "MVDA').
2. The instant writ petition is preferred for quashing of the order dated 26.4.2025 and further for a direction commanding the respondents not to proceed further against the petitioner in respect of allotment of the plot no. S-2/156 area 128 sq. mtr. under the Scheme Hanumat Vihar Awasiya Yojna, 2024.
3. The record reflects that earlier the petitioner had applied for the residential plot under the scheme known as 'Rukmani Vihar Awasiya Yojna, Sector-1, Vrindavan, Mauha Surakh Bangar, Mathura, which was floated by the MVDA on 27.10.2014. Under the said scheme the petitioner was allotted Plot No. S-1/1998 area 204.25 sq. mtr. for a sale consideration of Rs. 3,81,000/- and registered sale deed was executed on 21.7.2016. Later on the petitioner had sold the said plot to one Devendra Vallabh Goswami through registered sale deed on 20.7.2018. Subsequently, the MVDA had launched another scheme known as Hanumat Vihar Awasiya Yojna 2024 in which allotment was to be made through draw of lots. The petitioner again applied under the scheme and succeeded in draw of lots. Consequently, Plot No. S-2/156 area 128 sq. mtr. was allotted in favour of the petitioner on 25.11.2024. Subsequently, the respondent Authority had scrutinized the paper and proceeded to pass the order impugned whereby the plot in question allotted to the petitioner had been cancelled.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that though the petitioner had applied under the old scheme and was allotted one plot of land. Later on, he had sold the said plot of land so at the time of making application under the new scheme of 2024, the petitioner was admittedly having no plot under the MVDA. He submits that the MVDA, in an arbitrary manner, not only cancelled the allotment but also forfeited the deposit of Rs. 3,79,500/- made by the petitioner towards allotment under the scheme 2024. It is further submitted that the impugned order has been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner against the principles of natural justice and is liable to be set aside.
5. Per contra, Sri Abhimanyu Singh, learned counsel for the MVDA has opposed the writ petition and states that the scheme 2024 launched by the MVDA required a self-declaration to be given by the applicant itself. In the self-declaration the petitioner had himself marked the entry "I have not been allotted any property or plot/apartment/flat in past or current residential scheme of MVDA". He further submits that the sole intention of the scheme was to provide land to the vulnerable, but inspite of the knowledge that the petitioner was allotted a plot of land in the previous scheme and the petitioner has applied for the same deliberately concealing the said aspect from the Authority and submitted the self-declaration. He lastly submits that in view of the categorical terms and conditions, which is enumerated in the brochure, the petitioner is not entitled for any reprieve as the self-declaration form is contrary to the record, there is no need for giving any notice or opportunity. Under the facts and circumstances, no reprieve can be accorded to the petitioner.
6. Heard rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. It transpires from the record, that the petitioner had previously applied in the scheme floated by the MVDA in the year 2014 and was allotted Plot No. S-1/1998 area 204.25 sq. mtr. for a sale consideration of Rs. 3,81,000/- and later on he sold the said plot. Subsequently, he applied under the scheme 2024, concealing the fact of earlier allotment and was successful in draw of lots. The brochure of Residential Scheme-Hanumat Vihar Mathura-Vrindavan provides the terms and conditions for allotment which provides the due eligibility required for making application under the said scheme. For ready reference the relevant paragraph of the brochure is reproduced hereinunder:-
"4. Eligibility 4.1 The applicant must be a citizen of India and should be competent to contract and have attained the age of 18 years on 02.7.2024 i.e. on the date of commencement of the Scheme.
4.2 Any applicant who has been allotted residential plots in any scheme of Mathura-Vrindavan Development Authority is not eligible to get allotment under the scheme. If it is found at a later stage that any applicant, his family (family means applicant, his wife/her husband) holds any plot under the Authority Scheme (MVDA), then his/her application/allotment would be cancelled, and the total deposit shall be forfeited by the Authority.
4.3 The Applicant or his family members may apply for multiple residential plots, but once a residential plot his awarded to any member of the family, then the applicant or any of the family member shall not be eligible for any other allotment. In that case, if an person of his/her family gets allotment in more than one plot in the scheme, he/she shall get full refund of the money deposited for all other properties without any interest, except one which he/she wants to hold. If any allottee/family member fails to inform the Authority regarding the allotment of multiple plots within a month of receiving the allotment letter or conceals information regarding such allotments, the Authority, upon discovering the allocations, will forfeit the full deposited amount of the higher-cost plot."
8. In the facts and circumstances, we find that in the instant matter the objection so raised by learned counsel for the MVDA definitely has force to the extent that it is not material whether at the time of making application under the scheme 2024 floated by the Authority, whether the petitioner holds any earlier allotment made by the MVDA or not. It is an admitted position that under the scheme 2014 he was allotted a plot and later on he had sold the same and again applied under the new scheme 2024, wherein he was successfully allotted a plot. Moreover the petitioner himself has given a self-declaration wherein it is said that the petitioner had not been allotted any plot previously. In the facts and circumstances, the Court is of considered view that once the applicant had been allotted a plot of land under the previous scheme and subsequently, he had sold the land and created third party interest, he cannot be given benefit to again apply for the scheme which is made solely for giving relief to people belonging to vulnerable section of the society, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order so as to warrant any interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
9. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is dismissed.
(Anish Kumar Gupta,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.) September 23, 2025 Kirti