- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) Facts and circumstances giving rise to both the writ petitions are inter linked and are stated in brief here in below :- Writ-C.No.32886 Sadhana Dwedi v/s State of U.P. And 2 Others has been filed by Sadhna Dwivedi stating that she applied for a L.I.G. plot Area 50 Sq. Mtr. in Vaishnavi Vihar Scheme, Kanpur and a plot bearing No. 628 in the aforesaid scheme was allotted in her favour, vide allotment letter dated 15.3.2004 and as per terms and conditions of allotment letter, the petitioner deposited the entire amount up to 10.3.2005, photo copy of the receipts are annexed collectively at annexure-2 to the petition. It is Further contended that she received a letter dated 17.4.2013 issued from the office of respondent no.3 alleging that the amount was not deposited by the petitioner and a demand of Rs.1,003,48/- was made and in case of non-compliance it was specified that her allotment shall be cancelled. After receiving the said letter the petitioner immediately rushed to the office of opposite party no.3 and moved the application dated 3.5.2013 stating that she had already deposited entire amount in the year 2004-05 enclosing the receipts of payment, She also prayed to correct the record and register requisite sale deed in her favour, thereafter she regularly approached the O.P. no. 2 and 3 but no decision was taken. It is also submitted that suddenly the petitioner came to know that the aforesaid plot No. 628 L.I.G. Vaishnavi Vihar Scheme, Kanpur was allotted to some other person then she again moved an application dated 03.04.2014 and request to the respondent no.2 to cancell the allotment and execute registered sale deed in her favour. In the writ petition following reliefs are claimed:- " i) Issue a writ, order or direction to respondent no.2 to decide the applications and execute the sale certificate of the plot no. i.e. LIG No. 628 in Vaishnavi Vihar, Kanpur in favour of the petitioner without and any further delay and not to take any coercive measure in pursuance to impugned recovery citation. ii) Issue a writ, order or direction to the respondents may not allot the said plot to the third party."
(3.) On behalf of respondent nos. 2 & 3 counter affidavit has been filed whereby allotment of plot No. 628 L.I.G. Vaishnavi Vihar Scheme, Kanpur, in favour of the Sadhna Dwivedi is not denied besides this the payment on different dates from 3.1.2014 to 10.3.2015 has also been admitted. The details of the same are given hereinbelow: JUDGEMENT_425_LAWS(ALL)9_2015.html However, it is submitted that petitioner slept over her right for years and do not approach before the authorities. Consequently Kanpur Development Authority finding the claim of the petitioner to be non-verified had communicated the petitioner stating that she may appear before the authority bringing all the original deposit receipts and thereafter on 29.7.2013 the allotment in favour of the petitioner Sadhna Dwivedi was canceled. However that order was conditional whereby it was specifically mentioned that "in case the deposit were found to be made and verified by the department then the aforesaid cancellation will be deemed to be revoked". It is also stated therein that information regarding cancellation of the plot was sent to the petitioner and in open option the same plot was purchased by Sri Dharmendra Singh on 19.11.2013. It is also stated that the receipts of deposit furnished by petitioner are verified and now allotment in favour of Sadhna Dwedi has been restored.;