Disposed

Smt. Sunita Dwivedi and Others v. Addl. Commissioner Administration, Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya and Others

Allahabad HC17 Oct 2025WRIC/10323/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging land measurement proceedings where petitioners were not impleaded despite affected rights. Court noted discrepancies in land area reports and prima facie viability of the claim regarding natural justice and notice.

What did the court decide?

Interim status quo directed; notice issued to remaining respondents; matter listed for further hearing.

Smt. Sunita Dwivedi and Others vs Addl. Commissioner… — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 10323 of 2025

¶3

Smt. Sunita Dwivedi And Others

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

Addl. Commissioner Administration, Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya And Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ankit Pande Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Ajay Kumar Pandey, Neetu Mishra, Rakesh Kumar Chaudhary

¶9

Court No. - 6

¶10

HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J.

¶11

Heard Dr. R.S. Pande, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Virendra Bhatt, learned counsel for the petitioners. Notice on behalf of the respondents No.1 and 2 has been accepted by the office of the Chief Standing Counsel. Shri Rakesh Kumar Chaudhary, learned counsel has accepted notice on behalf of the respondent No.18.

¶12

Shri Mohd. Ali, learned counsel has put in appearance on behalf of the caveator Shri Ashutosh Mishra and also filed his Vakalatnama, which is taken on record. A copy of this petition had been served on the learned counsel for the caveator and Ashutosh Mishra is the successor-in-interest of respondent nos.3 and 4.

¶13

Dr. Pande, learned Senior Counsel submits that inadvertently he has not impleaded Shri Ashutosh Mishra as a party in this petition and a request has been made to permit him to implead Shri Ashutosh Mishra as a partyrespondent No.19 in the memo of petition.

¶14

Let the needful be done during the course of day.

¶15

The dispute in question relates to Plot No.1127. Shri Ramakant, the private-respondent No.3, who is the predecessor-in-interest of Shri Ashutosh Mishra, who has been impleaded as respondent No.19, is said to have purchased an area of 5 Biswa, by means of the sale-deed dated 13.07.2023 relating to Plot No.1128.

¶16

WRIC No. 10323 of 2025

¶17

¶18

The contention is that there were discrepancies in the map and the proceedings were initiated at the behest of Ramakant and Tilak Dhari Maurya, who is the respondents No.3 and 4. In the said proceedings, the rights of the petitioners would have been affected as the report of the Tracer indicates that Plot No.1128 is less in area from the area of the map and as per the report, the Plot No.1127 is said to have some excess land.

¶19

It is the case of the petitioners that knowing fully well, the Plot No.1127 was sought to be affected, the least that should have been done was to put the petitioners to notice so that they could furnish their objections including on the report and thereafter the matter could have been contested on merit, however, the same was not done and an order had been passed dated 30.03.2015.

¶20

The said order was assailed by the present petitioners and in the memo of revision specific grounds were alleged that the petitioners were not made as parties and their rights are being affected yet without putting them to notice, an order had been passed and this aspect has not been considered by the revisional authority, while rejecting the revision by means of the order dated 08.10.2025.

¶21

It is further urged that the petitioners are under as apprehension that the respondent may disturb the possession of the petitioners and in such circumstances, the interim order granted by the revisional Court be extended by this Court to the petitioners.

¶22

Shri Mohd. Ali, learned counsel for the respondent No.19 submits that the land in question is now covered with the residential constructions. The report of the Tracer clearly indicates that the Plot No.1128 is less. He has drawn attention to a report as to how the land can be measured and compensated which has also been indicated in the report. It is based on the said report, that the impugned orders have been passed by the respondent No.2 and the same has been affirmed by the respondent No.1 and these being pure questions of fact may not be disturbed in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶23

Having considered the aforesaid submissions and from a perusal of the material on record, prima-facie , this Court finds that the matter

¶24

WRIC No. 10323 of 2025

¶25

¶26

requires consideration.

¶27

Since, the private-respondent No.19 has put in appearance, accordingly, no fresh notice is required.

¶28

Let notice be issued to the remaining respondents No.3 to 17 returnable at an early date.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioners shall take necessary steps by 28th October, 2025.

¶30

It will be open for the private-respondents to file their counter affidavit within three weeks. The petitioners shall have ten days' thereafter to file their rejoinder affidavit.

¶31

List on 28.11.2025 . Till the next date of listing, the parties are directed to maintain status-quo as it exists today.

¶32

Office to reflect the name of Shri Mohd. Ali as counsel for the respondent when the matter is next listed.

¶33

(Jaspreet Singh,J.)

¶34

October 17, 2025

¶35

Rakesh/-

¶36

Digitally signed by :- RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Smt. Sunita Dwivedi and Others v. Addl. Commissioner Administration, Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sunita Dwivedi and Others v. Addl. Commissioner Administration, Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sunil Kumar Srivastava and 4 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy./Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko. and 3 Others

Rajesh Singh and Others vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Unnao and Others

Ram Chandra and 3 Others vs U.O.I. Thru. General Officer Commanding in Chief Appellate Authority Lko. and Another

Devesh Singh and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue, Lko. and Others

Smt. Sadbhavna vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Cooperative Deptt. and 4 Others

Lakshmi Devi vs Settlement Officer Consolidation, Lucknow and Others