PRADEEP Kant, Shabihul Hasnain, JJ. - (1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Sameer Kalia, Sri Shobhit Mohan Shukla holding brief of Sri D. K. Upadhyaya for respondents 1 and 2 and Sri Nirav Chitrawansi for respondent no. 3. Learned counsel for the Lucknow Development Authority has not been able to receive any instruction. Sri Nirav Chitrawansi, however, says that as per the telephonic instruction, he has been informed that a drive for removing encroachments by the Nagar Nigam and Lucknow Development Authority is continuing, where the petitioner is threatened of demolition/eviction. Prima facie, we are satisfied that the petitioner is an allottee of the kiosk in question by the Lucknow Development Authority and unless this allotment is cancelled after affording opportunity to the petitioner, the demolition or eviction cannot be effected straightaway. We, therefore, provide as an interim measure that unless an opportunity is afforded to the petitioner, the kiosk in question shall neither be demolished nor the petitioner shall be evicted otherwise than in accordance with law. .;