- (1.) The petitioner claiming an allotment made by the respondent Development Authority has instituted these proceedings seeking the following reliefs: - "1. Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ; order or direction to the respondent and command them to issue a fresh schedule of the remaining payment to be made by the petitioner to the respondent and to execute the lease deed in favour of the petitioner, in respect of the allotted plot No. 122 in Pocket A of Sector 20 of Yamuna Expressway Development Area as per the rescheduled payment Scheme and hand over the plot No. 122 in Pocket A of Sector 20 of the residential scheme i.e. 2009 (1) to the petitioner. 2. Issue a writ of mandamus to the respondent no.1 to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 01.03.2016 as Annexure no. 16 to the petition. 3. Pass such other and further orders and/or such directions or directives as this Hon'ble Court may deem just and appropriate and as the circumstances of the case may warrant and award cost."
(2.) In paragraph 1 of the petition it has been averred that this is the first writ petition for the relief claimed and that no other proceedings have been initiated earlier seeking same relief.
(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent Development Authority has raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petition and submits that the averments made in paragraph 1 of the writ petition are patently false and that the petitioner is guilty of having suppressed material facts. Elaborating upon the said submission the learned counsel has referred to an earlier writ petition1 filed by the petitioner, which came to be dismissed as withdrawn on 16 September 2010. A Division Bench of this Court dismissed the aforesaid writ petition in the following terms: - "Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent no. 1 and Sri Ramendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 2 and have perused the record. The case of the petitioner is that he was allotted a plot of land measuring 4,000 Sq. meters vide Allotment-cum-Allocation Letter dated 20th October, 2009 passed by the respondent no. 2. A payment schedule had been provided in the said allotment letter itself. As per the same, the petitioner was required to deposit allotment money and thereafter six monthly installments regarding which the petitioner has already filed a representation before the respondent no.2. After some arguments were advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, he made a request that the petitioner may be permitted to withdraw this writ petition. This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed as withdrawn without any liberty to file a fresh writ petition. No costs. ";