Disposed

Mukesh Yadav and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC22 Jan 2025WRIC/1791/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition seeking direction for allotment of 10% residential plot based on a prior judgment, the court disposed of the matter by directing the Development Authority to pass a speaking order within eight weeks after receiving a fresh representation.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondent Development Authority to pass a speaking order on the claim within eight weeks of communication of the order along with a fresh representation.

Mukesh Yadav and 2 Others vs State of U.P… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:32330-DB

¶2

Court No. - 21

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1791 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- Mukesh Yadav And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Harish Yadav,Raj Kumar Kesari Counsel for Respondent :- Anjali Upadhya,C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J. Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J.

¶6

The following prayer has been made in the writ petition:

¶7

"i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents concerned to make the allotment of 10% residential plot in the development area under the strength of the judgment of this Hon'ble Court in the case of "Gajraj Vs. State of U.P. and others" 2011(11) ADJ 1".

¶8

Ms. Anjali Upadhya, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, Development Authority, submits that the petitioners were not party to Full Bench judgment in Gajraj & others vs. State of U.P. & others, 2011 (11) ADJ 1, therefore, they are not entitled to 10% developed land.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in identical facts and circumstances, where certain persons have not challenged the acquisition proceedings nor were party in Gajraj & others (supra), the Authority has given them 10% developed land. Consequently, the respondents cannot discriminate the petitioners. A specific plea in this regard has been taken in paragraph-18A of the writ petition.

¶10

Ms. Anjali Upadhya, learned counsel for the respondent, Development Authority, very fairly states that the said aspect would be examined by the Development Authority.

¶11

Accordingly, the instant petition is disposed of with direction to the respondent, Development Authority, to pass a speaking order in relation to the claim of the petitioners having regard to the averments made in paragraph-18A of the writ petition within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of the instant order along with a fresh representation.

¶12

(Anish Kumar Gupta, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.)

¶13

Order Date :- 6.3.2025 Digitally signed by :- Ankit. ANKIT VISHWAKARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mukesh Yadav and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh Yadav and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rajmani and 13 Others vs National Highway Authority of India and 2 Others

Vanshnarayan Singh and 16 Others vs National Highway Authority of India and 2 Others

Ramashankar and Another vs Union of India and 9 Others

Ajay Gupta vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Diligent Builders Pvt. Ltd. vs State of Up and Another

Smt. Vinesh and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and 4 Others