Disposed

Sri Ram Yadav v. the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Housing and Urban Planning Lko. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC30 Oct 2025WRIC/10483/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

WRIT - C No. 10483 of 2025; High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Court No. 2; decided 30.10.2025 (interim); Sri Ram Yadav v. State of U.P. (Prin. Secy., Housing and Urban Planning) +4; demolition notice dated 07.03.2025 under S.82(ii)/83, U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam 1965; Gata No.473, Village Barehta Manjha, Tehsil Sadar, District Ayodhya; Section 28 notification 17.10

What did the court decide?

Interim relief only: the impugned order dated 07.03.2025 shall remain stayed till the next date of listing (17.11.2025, as fresh); no final disposition of the writ petition on merits.

Sri Ram Yadav vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Housing and Urban Planning Lko. and 4 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 10483 of 2025

Sri Ram Yadav

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

The State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Housing And Urban Planning Lko. And 4 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Anshuman Pandey, Saryu Prasad Tiwari Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Ratnesh Chandra

¶9

Court No. - 2

¶10

HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J. HON'BLE AMITABH KUMAR RAI, J.

¶11

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing counsel representing the State-respondent Nos.1, 4, 5 and learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶12

2. This petition has been filed with the following prayers :-

¶13

"I. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing impugned notice dated 07.03.2025 issued by opposite party no.5 under section 82(ii)/83 of Uttar Pradesh Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 as contained in Annexure no.1 to this writ petition.

¶14

II. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing opposite party no.3 not to demolish the house of the petitioner existing on Gata No.473.

¶15

III. Issue such other order and direction as this Hon'ble court may deem fit in the fact and circumstances in the favour of petitioner in the interest of law and justice.

¶16

IV. Allow the writ petition."

¶17

3. It is the case of the petitioner that he is the recorded tenure holder of Gata No.473 area 34 Biswa situated at Village Barehta Manjha, Tehsil Sadar, District Ayodhya, as per the Khatauni, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure-3 to the petition. The respondents have passed an order on 07.03.2025 under Section 82 (ii)/83 of Uttar Pradesh Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as "the Adhiniyam, 1965" ) for demolition of the house constructed by the petitioner on his own land sometime in the year 2010, on the basis of a notification issued under Section 28 of the Adhiniyam, 1965 on 17.10.2020. It is evident from a perusal of the impugned order that no section 32 notification has been issued till date.

¶18

WRIC No. 10483 of 2025

¶19

¶20

4. It has also been pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner that the entire land of Gata No.473 has not been proposed to be acquired under Section 28, as the petitioner had filed a Right to Information application and the Additional District Magistrate, Land Acquisition, Ayodhya, provided information on 23.09.2025 that out of Gata No.473, only 0.43390 hectare has been acquired and the remaining portion has been left in favour of the tenure holder. A copy of the information given on 23.09.2025 has been filed as Annexure-4 to the petition and it is evident from the reply given by the Additional District Magistrate, Land Acquisition, Ayodhya to the petitioner's application that only a part of Gata No.473 is proposed to be acquired.

¶21

5. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that Section 82(ii)/83 of the Adhiniyam, 1965 do not apply in the petitioner's case, as his building has not been constructed in contravention of any scheme, the scheme itself not having been finalised till date and Section 32 notification having not been issued, as is evident from the impugned order, which does not mention any such notification.

¶22

6. Learned counsel for the respondents, at this stage, stated that the Section 32 notification was issued on 30.09.2025.

¶23

7. We find that the order has been passed on 07.03.2025, much before the Section 32 notification.

¶24

8. Learned counsel for the respondents could not show any provision under which a construction already made and completed in 2010 can be directed to be demolished.

¶25

9. The matter requires consideration.

¶26

10. List this matter on 17.11.2025 as fresh.

¶27

11. Till the next date of listing, the impugned order dated 07.03.2025 shall remain stayed.

¶28

(Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) (Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.)

¶29

October 30, 2025 Shubhankar

¶30

Digitally signed by :- SHUBHANKAR THAKUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sri Ram Yadav v. the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Housing and Urban Planning Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Ram Yadav v. the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Housing and Urban Planning Lko. and 4 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

Union of India, Thru.the Secy. Ministry of Defence South Block New Delhi and 4 Others vs No 678515 Ex Junior Warrant Officer Dinesh Chandra Shukla

U.P. State Industrial Development Authority Thru. Chief Executive Officer and Another vs M/S Ester Agro Products Private Ltd. Lko. and Another

U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Ministry of Defence New Delhi and 3 Others vs Hfo Rajnarayan Singh (Retd)

State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Ayush Medical Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others vs Dr. Nesan Parwez

Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Defence New Delhi and 3 Others vs Gp Capt (Ts) Sandeep Kaul

M/S Ester Agro Products Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Authorized Representative Devendra Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Infrastructure/Industrial Development and 3 Others