Disposed¶17

Rajeev Kumar Srivastava v. U.P.Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Lko. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. and 4 or.

Allahabad HC31 Mar 2026WRIC/11219/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Interim restraint against coercive action/demolition in writ petition over acquisition of Gata/Plot No. 137, Village Ghuswalkala, Pargana Bijnor, Lucknow; counter affidavit admits 0.03 hect. excluded from acquisition (post-Niyajan Samiti report); exemptions (Dinesh Jaiswal 81.22 sq.m; Ram Lotan 81.9 sq.m) total ~0.163 hect., short of excluded area; case listed 03.04.2026.

What did the court decide?

Interim relief only: respondents restrained from carrying out coercive action / demolition till the next date of listing; Parishad's counsel to clarify the exemption position and adduce relevant reports; case directed to be listed on 03.04.2026 in top ten cases. No final disposal. ¶17

Rajeev Kumar Srivastava vs U.P.Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Lko. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. and 4 or. — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶17

Issue for consideration

Whether the area of 0.03 hect. admittedly excluded from acquisition of Gata/Plot No. 137, Village Ghuswalkala (Pargana Bijnor, District and Tehsil Lucknow), has been properly located/exempted, given that exemptions recorded (81.22 sq.m for Dinesh Jaiswal and 81.9 sq.m for Ram Lotan) total roughly 0.163 hect. and fall short of the excluded area. +1 more

¶17

Court's answer

In the counter affidavit, in paragraph No. 17, an admission has been made, after the report of the Niyajan Samiti, that the construction to the extent of 0.03 hect. was excluded from acquisition.

¶12

Ratio / Principle

With regard to Gata No. 137, exemption from acquisition has been made to the extent of 81.22 sq. meter in favour of Dinesh Jaiswal and 81.9 sq. meters in favour of Ram Lotan; even if that area is calculated, it roughly comes to around 0.163 hect., which is still short of the 0.03 hect. excluded from acquisition.

¶13

Key takeaways

Considering the admission regarding exemption from acquisition and that the dispute concerns the location of the excluded area, the respondents are restrained from carrying out coercive action/demolition till the next date of listing.ratio¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), WRIT - C No. 11219 of 2024 — Rajeev Kumar Srivastava v. U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad and others (Coram: Alok Mathur & Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi, JJ.; order dated April 1, 2026). Interim order in a writ petition concerning acquisition of Gata/Plot No. 137, Village Ghuswalkala, Pargana Bijnor, District and Tehsil Lucknow. The counter affidavit admits (its para 17, after the Niyajan Samiti report) that construction to the extent of 0.03 hect. was excluded from acquisition; however, exemptions recorded with the counter affidavit (81.22 sq.m in favour of Dinesh Jaiswal and 81.9 sq.m in favour of Ram Lotan) total roughly 0.163 hect. and remain short of the excluded area, the dispute centring on the location of the excluded land. The Parishad's counsel sought time to clarify the position and produce reports. The Court restrained the respondents from carrying out coercive action/demolition till the next date of listing and directed listing of the case on 03.04.2026 in top ten cases.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 11219 of 2024

¶3

Rajeev Kumar Srivastava

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

U.P.Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Lko. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. And 4 Or.

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Anand Dubey, Abhishek, Utkarsh Misra
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: Ratnesh Chandra, C.S.C., Rama Pati Shukla

¶9

Court No. - 5

¶10

HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J. HON'BLE AMITABH KUMAR RAI, J.

¶11

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent nos. 4 and 5 and Sri Ratnesh Chandra, learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2.

¶12

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner purchased land situated at Khasra and Gata No. 137 of Village Ghuswalkala, Pargana Bijnor, Tehsil Sarojini Nagar, District Lucknow, measuring 139.405 square meters, from one Anil Kumar, who was the recorded tenure holder of the said land, by means of a registered sale deed dated 22.07.2013. It is further submitted that, with regard to the same land, a notification under Section 28 of the Uttar Pradesh Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1965") had previously been issued on 17.07.2004 for the development of a scheme known as "Sultanpur Road Bhoomi Vikas Evam Grahsthan Yojna," wherein 4465.39 acres of land were acquired in District Lucknow. The U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad (hereinafter referred to as the "Parishad") thereafter issued a notice on 14.10.2004 providing a list of all persons who had raised unauthorized constructions on the land proposed to be acquired, and such persons were directed to remove the unauthorized constructions. It has been submitted that after deciding all objections, a notification under Section 32(1) of the Act, 1965 was issued on 30.09.2006 and subsequently, as per the provisions of Section 55 of the Act, 1965, the land stood vested in the Parishad.

¶13

WRIC No. 11219 of 2024

¶14

¶15

3. He has also submitted that as per the present dispute, Khasra No. 137 was also the subject matter of acquisition by the Parishad and the area of Gata No. 137 was 0.735 hectares. Objections had also been received from certain persons who had constructions on the said land and, considering those objections, an area of 0.03 hectares was excluded from acquisition. Ultimately, an area of 0.705 hectares was, in fact, acquired. The dispute in the present case centers around the 0.03 hectares which was excluded from acquisition on the basis that permanent constructions already existed on the said land. According to the Parishad, 81.22 sq. meters of land was exempted on the said Gata number in favour of one Dinesh Jaiswal, while 81.9 sq. meters of land was excluded in favour of Ram Lotan, also on Gata No. 137. It is stated that, apart from the aforesaid measurements, the back setback and the side setback were also excluded and, according to Sri Ratnesh Chandra, the entire land with regard to these two persons measures 0.03 hectares.

¶16

4. It is the case of the respondents that once the land stands excluded in favour of Dinesh Jaiswal and Ram Lotan, no further land remains to be excluded in favour of the petitioner. It has further been submitted that Anil Kumar, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner, after the notification under Section 28 of the Act, 1965, sold land in favour of Smt. Rajiya w/o Mustak Khan, Sri Alok Kumar Pathak s/o S.N. Pathak, Smt. Rita Devi w/o Ram Nayak Pandey, and Sri Ajeet Kumar s/o Rajendra Prasad. According to the respondents, it appears that he deceived a number of persons on the strength of the exemption of land as ordered by the respondents.

¶17

5. It was vehemently contended on behalf of the petitioner that, without demarcating the land, the respondents cannot proceed with the demolition of the petitioner's construction. Accordingly, it is submitted that demarcation should first be carried out and only thereafter can any sort of demolition be undertaken by the respondents.

¶18

6. Sri Ratnesh Chandra, on the other hand, opposed the writ petition and submitted that once it has been brought on record that the exemption of 0.03 hectares has been made in favour of Dinesh Jaiswal and Ram Lotan, no further land remains for exemption in

¶19

WRIC No. 11219 of 2024

¶20

¶21

favour of any other person. Accordingly, there cannot be any dispute with regard to the location of the land.

¶22

7. We have considered the rival contentions of the parties and perused the record. From the aforesaid facts, it is evident that Gata No. 137 was the subject matter of acquisition and the total area of the said Gata was 0.735 hectares. Out of the aforesaid land, 0.03 hectares was excluded, taking into account the permanent constructions existing on the said land, and accordingly, 0.705 hectares was the actual land acquired. As per the counter affidavit filed by the Parishad, the excluded land was on account of constructions made by Dinesh Jaiswal and Ram Lotan. On the other hand, we find that it is only after the aforesaid acquisition that in 2013, the petitioner purchased the land and it has been submitted that his name was duly mutated in the revenue records.

¶23

8. Be that as it may, the dispute still pertains to whether it is the land of the petitioner which has been exempted by the Parishad or whether it was the land owned by Dinesh Jaiswal and Ram Lotan which was exempted. The aforesaid issues involve serious questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Apart from this, we find that Dinesh Jaiswal and Ram Lotan are not parties to the present petition, and accordingly, the lis sought to be raised by the petitioner cannot be decided in these proceedings. Accordingly, the said dispute remains open to be canvassed by the petitioner in appropriate proceedings before the appropriate authority, either in a court of civil jurisdiction or under the provisions of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

¶24

9. Considering the request made by the petitioner, liberty is granted to the petitioner to move an appropriate application under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 before the competent authority within the next two weeks. In case such an application is maintainable, the competent authority shall proceed with the matter in accordance with law and conclude the same expeditiously, preferably within a maximum period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced along with the application. Liberty is also granted to the petitioner to move an application for interim relief for staying the proposed demolition by the respondents. In case the

¶25

WRIC No. 11219 of 2024

¶26

¶27

application under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 is maintainable, the competent authority shall also consider and decide the application for interim relief.

¶28

10. In the aforesaid circumstances, it is provided that for four weeks from today, the parties shall maintain status quo with regard to the property in dispute.

¶29

11. It is made clear that upon expiry of the aforesaid period, the protection granted by this Court shall cease to exist.

¶30

12. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of .

¶31

April 7, 2026 Ashish Dewal

¶32

(Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) (Alok Mathur,J.)

¶33

Digitally signed by :- ASHISH DEWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rajeev Kumar Srivastava v. U.P.Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Lko. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. and 4 or.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajeev Kumar Srivastava v. U.P.Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Lko. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. and 4 or.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Vansh Kapoor vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Energy Deptt. Lko and 7 Others

Rafat Moid vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Vivek Kumar Verma vs Shweta Verma, Assistant Teacher Mksd Inter College Lko.

Vijay Pratap Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Meenu Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Urban Development Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 9 Others

Pankaj Kumar and 9 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin./ Addl.Chief Secy. Deptt. of Food Safety Drug Administration and Ors.