Disposed¶11

Sanjay Sharma and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC7 May 2026WRIC/16652/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

U.P. Road Side Land Control Act 1945; impugned notice dated 21.01.2026; maintainability of writ petition; alternative statutory remedy; objection not yet filed before authority; disposal with consent of parties; direction to respondent no. 3 to decide objection within two weeks after hearing; merits left open; Allahabad High Court; WRIT - C No. 16652 of 2026; May 7, 2026.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of finally with consent of parties; petitioners permitted to file objection within one week, and respondent no. 3 directed to decide such objection strictly in accordance with law within a further two weeks after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioners; no adjudication on merits. ¶11

Sanjay Sharma and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 16652 of 2026

¶3

Sanjay Sharma And 2 Others

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Madhukar Maurya, Mohd Zubair Khan Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.

¶6

Court No. - 21

¶7

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

¶8

Heard Sri Madhukar Maurya, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Ambrish Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondent.

¶9

The instant writ petition has been preferred for quashing the impugned notice dated 21.01.2026 issued by respondent no. 3 under U.P. Road Side Land Control Act 1945 .

¶10

At the very outset, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel raised two-fold objections qua maintainability of the writ petition. Firstly, the proceedings under U.P. Road Side Land Control Act 1945 (in short 'Act') are yet to be finalised and without waiting for final outcome of said proceedings straightaway the petitioners have approached to this Court without filing an objection to the impugned notice. Secondly, against the final outcome of the proceedings under the Act, the petitioners are having efficacious statutory remedy under the Act itself.

¶11

In the facts and circumstances of the case, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the writ petition pending and with the consent of the parties, the writ petition is disposed of finally with a direction in case, any such objection is filed by the petitioner within a week's time from today, the respondent no. 3 would proceed strictly, in accordance with law to decide the same within further two weeks time but certainly after affording opportunity to the petitioners. Needless to say, we have not adverted on merit of the case.

¶12

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

¶13

May 7, 2026

¶14

A.K.Srivastava

¶15

Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sanjay Sharma and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Sharma and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 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

Harish Chandra and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Kanpur Colonisers Private Limited vs State of Up and 5 Others

Brahm Singh and 7 Others vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Nepal Singh and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Maulana Furkan Ali vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Bhim Singh vs State of Uttar Pradesh and 2 Others