Dilnawaz Ahmed vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Learned counsel for the petitioners apprises the Court that the controversy in hand is squarely covered by the judgement and order dated 01.12.2025 in WRIT - C No. - 42185 of 2025 (Abdul Rasheed vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others). For ready reference, the order dated 01.12.2025 is quoted as under:-

¶10

"1. Heard Shri Manish Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Fuzail Ahmad Ansari, learned Standing Counsel for State respondents.

¶11

2. At the outset, Shri Fuzail Ahmad Ansari, learned Standing Counsel apprises the Court that the controversy in hand is squarely covered by the order dated 24.11.2025 passed by the coordinate Bench in Writ C No.40143 of 2025 (Mukhtar Ahmad vs. State of U.P. and 2 others).

¶12

3. For ready reference, the order dated 24.11.2025 is quoted herein below:-

¶13

"1. Petitioner claims to be tenant and is under threat of the demolition of the house of the land lord in a Dalmandi area of city of Varanasi where the road widening is taking place at the end of the State-respondents and the local authorities.

¶14

WRIC No. 39628 of 2025

¶15

2

¶16

2. In our considered view, the owner of the property would be the real aggrieved person.

¶17

3. In the circumstances, we dispose of this petition with direction to the petitioner to approach the respondent no.2 and 3 through his land owner / land lord for the grievance against the demolition and protection of his tenancy and we further provide that in the event landlord approaches the respondent authority, it will consider his representation and shall dispose of the same in accordance with law."

¶18

4. So far as factual and legal aspect is concerned, the same is not disputed by Shri Manish Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. However, he submits that some time may be accorded to file the representation through his land owner/landlord before the competent authority for redressal of his grievance in the light of the order passed in the case of Mukhtar Ahmad (supra).

¶19

5. We are in respectful agreement with the coordinate Bench order passed in Mukhtar Ahmad' case (supra). However, we observe that in case the petitioner approaches the respondent authority through his land owner/landlord for the grievance against the demolition and protection of his tenancy within two weeks from today, it will consider his representation and dispose of the same in accordance with law.

¶20

6. With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition stands disposed of."

¶21

So far as the factual and legal aspects are concerned, the same are not disputed by learned Standing Counsel.

¶22

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that similar indulgence is liable to be accorded in the instant matter also.

¶23

The present writ petition is disposed of in the same terms as have been given in Abdul Rasheed (Supra).

¶24

(Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.)

¶25

WRIC No. 39628 of 2025

¶26

3

¶27

December 2, 2025 RKP

¶28

Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Dilnawaz Ahmed v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dilnawaz Ahmed v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Saurabh and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

M/S Mahadev Baba Ent Udhyog vs Union of India and 4 Others

Syed Shazi Ali vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Rani Devi and 6 Others vs State of Up and 3 Others

Raj Kumar and Another vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Arshi and 5 Others vs State of U.P. and 3 Others