Disposed¶20

Ramesh Kumar and 17 Others v. the State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC26 Nov 2025WRIC/41748/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Demolition public notice; U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad; certiorari and mandamus; apprehension of demolition without due process; Section 11A Land Acquisition Act 1894 (raised as counsel's contention, not decided); representation to Executive Engineer, Construction Division, Roohel Khand, Bareilly; time-bound decision of representation; interim stay of coercive action; writ petition disposed of without touching merits; Allahabad High Court; November 26, 2025.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of without adverting to merits; direction to respondent No.4 to decide the petitioners' fresh representation (to be filed within two weeks with certified copy of the order) within three weeks; interim protection that no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners till disposal of the representation. ¶20

Ramesh Kumar and 17 Others vs the State of U.P. and 4… — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether the Public Notice dated 10.11.2025 issued by the Assistant Engineer, Respondent No.5, so far as it relates to the petitioners' land, is liable to be quashed by writ of certiorari. +1 more

¶13

Court's answer

Without adverting to the merits, the writ petition is disposed of with the observation that if the petitioners submit a fresh representation with a certified copy of the order before respondent No.4 (Executive Engineer, Construction Division, Roohel Khand, U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, Bareilly) within two weeks, it shall be decided within the next three weeks.

¶20

Ratio / Principle

Till the disposal of the petitioners' fresh representation, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners.

¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Division Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Kunal Ravi Singh, JJ.) disposed of WRIT - C No. 41748 of 2025 filed by Ramesh Kumar and 17 others seeking certiorari to quash a Public Notice dated 10.11.2025 issued by the Assistant Engineer, U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad (Respondent No.5) qua their land, and mandamus restraining demolition. Without adverting to the merits, the Court directed that a fresh representation filed within two weeks, with a certified copy of the order, before respondent No.4 - the Executive Engineer, Construction Division, Roohel Khand, U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, Bareilly - shall be decided within the next three weeks, and that till such disposal no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners. Counsel for the Parishad contended that Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was not attracted and that any demolition would follow ample opportunity to stakeholders; these submissions were not adjudicated.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 41748 of 2025

¶3

Ramesh Kumar And 17 Others

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State Of U.P. And 4 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ramendra Asthana Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Punit Kumar Upadhyay

¶9

Court No. - 29

¶10

HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J. HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J.

¶11

Heard Shri Ramendra Asthana, learned counsel for the petitioners, Ms. Uttara Bahuguna, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Shri Punit Kumar Upadhyay, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5 - U.P. Avas Evam Vikash Parishad.

¶12

This writ petition has been filed praying inter alia for the following relief:

¶13

"(a) Call for record of the case and issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing Public Notice dated 10.11.2025 (Contained in, Annexure No. VI to the writ petition) issued by the Assistant Engineer, the Respondent No.5, so far it relates to land of the petitioners, as per details in Chart copy whereof is being annexed herewith and marked as Annexure No.I to the writ petition).

¶14

(b) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding thereafter respondents not to demolish or take any action in pursuance of impugned order demolition notice dated 10.11.2023 (Annexure No.VI).

¶15

(c) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to decide representations made by the petitioners against the aforesaid impugned demolition public notice."

¶16

WRIC No. 41748 of 2025

¶17

¶18

Shri Ramendra Asthana, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the respondent – U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad is proceeding in an arbitrary manner, and there is an apprehension that without following due process of law, some demolition may be carried out.

¶19

Per contra, Shri Punit Kumar Upadhyay, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 – U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, submits that Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is not attracted in matters relating to the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad even though the land in question is acquired land. He submits that the petitioners are not the original owners. However, he submits that any demolition shall be carried out only after giving ample opportunity to all stakeholders.

¶20

Considering the factual scenario and without adverting to the merits of the case, the writ petition is finally disposed of with the observation that in case the petitioners submit a fresh representation along with a certified copy of this order before the respondent No.4 – the Executive Engineer, Construction Division, Roohel Khand, U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, Bareilly within two weeks from today for redressal of their grievances, the same shall be decided within the next three weeks. Till the disposal of the aforesaid representation, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners.

¶21

(Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.) November 26, 2025

¶22

NLY

¶23

Digitally signed by :- NAND LAL YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ramesh Kumar and 17 Others v. the State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Kumar and 17 Others v. the State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Asad Ahmad and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rajab Akhtar and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Anoop Kumar Seth vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Mohd. Meraz vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Pradyuman Shukla vs State of Up and 3 Others

Bablu and 22 Others vs National Highway Authority of India and 2 Others