Bhim Singh Vs State of Uttar Pradesh and 2 Others

Heard Sri Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri Ambrish Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the Staterespondents and Sri Kaushalendra Nath Singh, learned counsel for the respondent-NOIDA.

¶12

The instant writ petition has been preferred for a mandamus directing the respondents to allot the petitioner's share of 50% in the land in question to the extent of 285.25 square meters and an amount of Rs. 62,75,500/- being 5% of 50% of the petitioner's share (This is granted by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the petition of petitioner's brother Pratap Singh's petition, the half of 10% developed abadi land as per Gajraj case).

¶13

At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon paragraph 5 of the order dated 24.3.2026 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Contempt Petition (C) No. 965/2023 in Civil Appeal No. 4754/2015 filed by petitioner's brother Pratap Singh. For ready reference, the same is reproduced herein.

¶14

"Mr. Purvish Malkan, learned senior counsel, also submits that the petitioner himself as

¶15

well as his brother. However, as Mr. Ravindra Kumar, learned senior counsel, opposed the

¶16

said submission on the basis of the writ petition and other documents, we leave the issue relating to the entitlement of the petitioner's brother open. The petitioner's brother will be entitled to avail such remedies as may be permissible in law for making a similar claim as that of the petitioner. Upon an appropriate remedy adopted by the petitioner's brother, the concerned Court may dispose of this petition expeditiously."

¶17

WRIC No. 16745 of 2026

¶18

2

¶19

In this backdrop, he submits that as in the aforesaid proceeding, petitioner's counsel has made a statement that the petitioner is not only contesting the case for himself but also on behalf of his brother, who is petitioner in the instant proceeding. He submits that Hon'ble Supreme Court has left the issue relating to the entitlement of the petitioner (brother) open and avail such remedies as may be permissible in law for making a similar claim as that of his brother. Under the facts and circumstances, the petitioner is also entitled to receive benefit in the light of Full Bench judgment of this Court in Gajraj Singh v. State of U.P. and others 2011(11) ADJ 1 .

¶20

Per contra, learned counsel for the contesting-respondent submits that admittedly the petitioner was not a party in the Full Bench in Gajraj Singh (supra) . The identical claim has been considered by the coordinate Bench in Damber Singh and another v. State of U.P. and another (WritC No. 29560 of 2025), which was dismissed vide order dated 15.10.2025. Subsequently, relying upon Damber Singh (supra), this Court has also rejected the identical claim in Inder Bir Singh Uppal and another v. State of U.P. and 2 others (Writ-C No. 40340 of 2025, dt. 18.11.2025). He submits that under the facts and circumstances no case is made out and the instant writ petition is also liable to be dismissed in the light of Damber Singh (supra).

¶21

Considering the facts and circumstances and the relief as has been prayed for, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the writ petition pending for consideration and with the consent of the parties, the writ petition is disposed of finally with the direction to the competent authority to decide the claim of the petitioner strictly in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible and preferably within three months from the date of production of a copy of this order before him but certainly after affording opportunity to all stakeholders in the matter. Needless to say, we have not adverted on merit of the case.

¶22

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

¶23

May 7, 2026 A.K.Srivastava

¶24

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

Bhim Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhim Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh 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

Cases cited

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

Chhatar Pal Sharma and Another Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Adityaagarwal and 22 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Vikram and 26 Others vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Rajkumar and 32 Others vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Akhilesh Kumar Jaiswal vs State of U.P. and 5 Others