Disposed¶21

Rani Devi and 6 Others v. State of Up and 3 Others

Allahabad HC2 Dec 2025WRIC/42345/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad HC, WRIT-C 42345/2025, disposed 02.12.2025: tenant petitioners (Rani Devi +6) facing demolition during Dalmandi, Varanasi road widening; controversy held covered by coordinate Bench order of 24.11.2025 in Writ C No.40143 of 2025 (Mukhtar Ahmad vs. State of U.P.); court agreed ('respectful agreement'), directed representation through land owner/landlord within two weeks, authority to consider and dispose per law; no statutes cited; no quantum.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with the observation that if the petitioners approach the respondent authority through their land owner/landlord, for the grievance against the demolition and protection of their tenancy, within two weeks, the authority will consider their representation and dispose of it in accordance with law. ¶21

Rani Devi and 6 Others vs State of Up and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners' grievance against the threatened demolition (road-widening works, Dalmandi area, Varanasi) and the protection of their tenancy is to be pursued before the competent respondent authority through their land owner/landlord, on the lines of the coordinate Bench disposal in Mukhtar Ahmad (supra).

¶19

Court's answer

This Court records respectful agreement with the coordinate Bench order passed in Mukhtar Ahmad (supra) and adopts its approach of routing the grievance against the demolition and the protection of tenancy through the land owner/landlord.

¶20

Ratio / Principle

The Court observes that if the petitioners approach the respondent authority through their land owner/landlord, for the grievance against the demolition and protection of their tenancy, within two weeks, the authority will consider their representation and dispose of the same in accordance with law.

¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Kunal Ravi Singh, JJ.), WRIT - C No. - 42345 of 2025 — Rani Devi And 6 Others vs. State Of Up And 3 Others — decided December 2, 2025. The petitioner tenants were confronted with the threatened demolition of their landlord's house in the Dalmandi area of Varanasi where road widening was being carried out by the State respondents and local authorities. Learned Standing Counsel apprised the Court that the controversy was squarely covered by the coordinate Bench order dated 24.11.2025 in Writ C No.40143 of 2025 (Mukhtar Ahmad vs. State of U.P. and 2 others), quoted in the judgment, wherein — proceeding on the view that the owner of the property would be the real aggrieved person — a similarly placed tenant petitioner was directed to approach respondent nos. 2 and 3 through the land owner/landlord, whose representation would be considered and disposed of in accordance with law. Petitioners' counsel did not dispute the factual and legal position and sought time to file the representation through the land owner/landlord in light of that order. This Court recorded respectful agreement with the coordinate Bench order and observed that if the petitioners approached the respondent authority through their land owner/landlord within two weeks with their grievance against the demolition and for protection of their tenancy, the authority would consider the representation and dispose of it in accordance with law. The instant writ petition stands disposed of.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 42345 of 2025

¶3

Rani Devi And 6 Others

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Up And 3 Others

¶7

		.....R	espondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Azizur Rahman Ahmad	Khan,	Zia Uddin
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C.

¶8

Court No. - 29

¶9

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

¶10

Heard Shri Azizur Rahman Khan and Ms. Ramanna Fatma, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Fuzail Ahmad Ansari, learned Standing Counsel for State respondents.

¶11

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

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

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

¶15

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

¶16

WRIC No. 42345 of 2025

¶17

¶18

of the same in accordance with law."

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

(Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.) December 2, 2025

¶23

Pkb/

¶24

Digitally signed by :- PRAMOD KUMAR BAJPAI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rani Devi and 6 Others v. State of Up and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rani Devi and 6 Others v. State of Up 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

Procedural history

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

Dilnawaz Ahmed vs State of U.P. 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