Lal Bahadur vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Housing and Urban Planning Lko. and 5 Others

Court No. - 2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 7639 of 2025 Petitioner :- Lal Bahadur Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Housing And Urban Planning Lko. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shubhangi Dwivedi,Deo Prakash Srivastava

¶3

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ratnesh Chandra

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J. Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Sri Mukund Tiwari, Advocate, who has filed his Power today on behalf of opposite party nos.2 and 3 (LDA), which is taken on record. His name shall be shown in the cause list as appearing for opposite party nos.2 and 3 when the case is next listed.

¶6

This petition has been filed with the following main prayers:

¶7

"I. Issue, a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding to the concern opposite parties to not demolish the shop in question constructed in the his holdings i.e. Gata No.280 measuring area 1/6th of 0.1450 hectare situated at Village Ahamamau, Tehsil Sarojini Nagar, District Lucknow during pendency of proceedings, registered as Case No.186/2022; Lucknow Development Authority Vs. Mohit Yadav & Anr., Ahamamau, Gomti Nagar Vistar, Lucknow under section 26-A(4) of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973, before the prescribed authority i.e. the opposite party no.4.

¶8

(A Certified/Photo Copy of the Khatauni of the petitioner is being annexed As Annexure No.1 to this petition)

¶9

II. Issue, a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding to the concern opposite parties to decide the pending representation of the petitioner.

¶10

(A Photo/Type Copy of the Representation moved by the petitioner along with postal receipts is being annexed As Annexure No.5 to this petition)"

¶11

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a tenure holder of the land in question and his son, namely, Mohit Yadav had made a temporary construction on Gata no.280 measuring area 1/6th of 0.1450

¶12

hectare situated in Village Ahamamau, Tehsil Sarojini Nagar, District Lucknow and is running a tea shop over there. The respondents have issued a notice under Section 26-A(4) of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 to the son of the petitioner on 18.4.2022, saying that he had illegally constructed the shop and was running it on the land, that had been acquired by the L.D.A. The petitioner had immediately submitted his objection on 16.8.2022 saying that the construction has been raised by his son on his share of holding and not on the land of the L.D.A. Despite such objection, the respondents have relied upon the report of the concerned authority dated 17.10.2023, which falsely indicated that the petitioner has not submitted any reply. The ground taken in the aforesaid notice that the petitioner or his son has made encroachment on public land is misconceived. Hence, this petition has been filed with the aforesaid prayers.

¶13

Sri Mukund Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for L.D.A., has pointed out Annexure-1, which is a copy of Khatauni of 1427 to 1432 Fasli (1.7.2019 to 30.6.2025) and under remarks at Serial no.(19), there is a description given of earlier orders. Such earlier orders are that of the Tehsildar, Sarojini Nagar, District Lucknow dated 23.9.2019 and of the Competent Authority/A.D.M. (Land Acquisition) dated 12.9.2019, according to which, in Village Ahamamau, Tehsil Sarojini Nagar, District Lucknow, orders were passed under Section 33(2) of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 and Gata No.280 area 0.0320 hectare has been recorded in the name of Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MORTH), Government of India, and names of Preeti Yadav, Soni daughters of Muneshwar and Kamlesh, Vikas, Vipin, Manoj Kumar sons of Muneshwar and Lal Bahadur, Raju sons of Ram Gulam and Ramkali wife of Muneshwar and Rakesh Babu son of Hanuman, have been struck off. It has been submitted on the basis of such Khatauni, which has been filed by the petitioner himself that the land in question i.e. Gata no.280 is recorded in the name of MORTH, Government of India and petitioner is not the owner of that land. Since petitioner is not the recorded tenure holder and his son has raised constructions, therefore, notice has been issued under Section 26-A(4) of the Act of 1973.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the petitioner and his blood relatives have been recorded as tenure holders over 0.1450 hectare of land whereas the Central Government (MORTH) is recorded as tenure holder for 0.0320 hectare of the same Gata no.280. The L.D.A. has nowhere stated in its notice that the land of MORTH has been demarcated and the petitioner's son has encroached upon the land belonging to the Central Government.

¶15

Sri Mukund Tiwari has argued at this point that nevertheless, MORTH, Government of India is a necessary and proper party in the writ petition.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner shall implead the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MORTH), Government Of India, through the concerned Secretary as respondent no.7 in the memo of writ petition today itself and serve a copy of the writ petition upon Sri S.B. Pandey, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India.

¶17

8. List this case in the next week as fresh .

¶18

Sri Mukund Tiwari shall seek specific instructions with regard to the arguments raised by the petitioner regarding no specific demarcation exercise being carried out.

¶19

Till the next date of listing, proceedings under Section 26A(4) of the Act of 1973 shall not be concluded.

¶20

Order Date :- 12.8.2025 Sachin

¶21

Digitally signed by :- SACHIN MEHROTRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Lal Bahadur v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Housing and Urban Planning Lko. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lal Bahadur v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Housing and Urban Planning Lko. and 5 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Union of India Thru. Secretary (Dopt) Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions vs Ravindra Kumar and 3 Others

U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Ministry of Defence (Air Force) New Delhi and 4 Others vs 654050-F Ex Wo Dasharath Mistry

Anand Mishra vs Smt. Rashmi Tripathi

M/S S.K.Traders Thru.Proprietor Meenu vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Urban Development U.P. Lko. and 2 Others

Rakesh Dhar Tripathi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Housing and Urban Planning Deptt. Lko. and Another

Smt. Mamta Devi and Another vs Shri Keshan