Dismissed

Suresh Sareen v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC12 Aug 2024WRIC/26267/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Dismissing the writ petition, the court held that the present filing does not constitute a fresh cause of action as the issue of land allotment remains pending in an earlier writ petition and left the petitioner with liberty to file an amendment application.

What did the court decide?

Leave was given to file an amendment application in the earlier pending writ petition; the present writ petition was dismissed.

Suresh Sareen vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:133917-DB

¶2

Court No. - 39

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 26267 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Suresh Sareen Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Devansh Misra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Kaushalendra Nath Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J. Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh,J.

¶6

Having heard Sri H.R. Mishra learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Devansh Mishra learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri D.K. Tiwari learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State and Sri Kaushalendra Nath Singh learned counsel for NOIDA, we find that arising from the first writ petition filed by the petitioner being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 49873 of 2008, the matter went to the Supreme Court where the Special Leave Petition (C) No. 22373 of 2010 was disposed of alongwith connected matters vide order dated 23.8.2011. Therein it was observed as below:

¶7

"After arguing the case for some time, learned counsel for the petitioner made a request that his client may be permitted to withdraw the special leave petition with liberty to avail other remedies including by way of filing fresh writ petition to challenge transfer of the acquired land allegedly made by the respondents to third party.

¶8

The request of the learned counsel is accepted and the special leave petition is dismissed as withdrawn in terms of the prayer made."

¶9

Thereafter Writ-C No. 57216 of 2011 was instituted by the petitioner. It is pending before this Court.

¶10

In such circumstances, learned Senior Counsel would submit that fresh cause of action has arisen to the petitioner inasmuch as the respondent authority is seeking to make fresh allotments for a completely new purpose which was not disclosed either at the stage of land acquisition or at the stage of filing Writ-C No. 57216

¶11

of 2011.

¶12

While the correct position of facts, as narrated by the petitioner, is not admitted to the respondent, at this stage, it remains a fact that the challenge (to the allotment) raised by the petitioner in accordance with the permission granted by the Supreme Court, is still engaging the attention of this Court.

¶13

In view of the above, we are not inclined to treat the present petition as one arising from a fresh cause of action. Since the issue of allotment of land is already pending before this Court in the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner, we leave it open to the petitioner to file appropriate amendment application in that writ petition itself.

¶14

Leaving that course open to the petitioner, writ petition is dismissed .

¶15

Order Date :- 21.8.2024 Faraz

¶16

(Donadi Ramesh, J.) (S. D. Singh, J.)

¶17

Digitally signed by :- FARAZ AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Suresh Sareen v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Sareen v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Smt Megha Chaudhary vs Ompal Singh

Smt Seema and Another vs Devesh Kumar

Anita Devi vs State of Up and 3 Others

Vikram Singh vs State of Up and 3 Others

Smt Arti vs State of Up and 2 Others

Suresh Sareen vs State of U.P. and 2 Others