Soni and 5 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Revenue Lko. and 7 Others

Heard Sri Yogendra Nath Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 7 and 8 and Sri Ratnesh Chandra, learned counsel for respondent no. 3. Sri Shailendra Singh Chauhan, Advocate has filed vakalatnama on behalf of respondent no. 6, same is taken on record.

¶12

By means of present writ petition the petitioners have prayed for following reliefs :

¶13

" i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to strictly comply with the judgment and order dated 23.01.2025 which is passed by this Hon'ble Court in Writ Petition No. 11185 of 2024 also restraining the respondents from demolishing the petitioner's houses without following due process of law and without conducting proper demarcation. Copy of the judgment and order dated 23.01.2025 which is passed by this Hon'ble Court in Writ Petition No. 11185 of 2024 is being annexed as Annexure No. 1 to this writ petition.

¶14

ii. Issue any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, just and proper in the circumstances of the case.

¶15

iii. Issue a writ order or direction to opposite party no. 7 i.e. Tehsildar, Sadar - Tehsil, Lucknow; demarcation of the land in question.

¶16

WRIC No. 3264 of 2026

¶17

2

¶18

iv. Allow the writ petition along with cost. "

¶19

Grievance raised by the petitioners in the present writ petition is that opposite parties have not demarcated the disputed property without even following the judgment of the coordinate Bench of this Court dated 23.01.2025, passed in Writ - C No. 11185 of 2024.

¶20

Considering the arguments of the petitioners it seems that for the same cause of action the petitioners had filed a writ petition previously being Writ - C No. 11185 of 2024, which was disposed of by this Court by directing the respondents not to proceed with demolition of structure in question without following the procedure prescribed in the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 295 of 2022. The Court has further directed that proper demarcation exercise shall be conducted to ascertain as to whether the structure is actually on the land as claimed by the petitioner or it is on any other Gata as claimed by the Lucknow Development Authority.

¶21

This Court has noticed that once for the same cause of action the petitioners have approached this Court and the said writ petition stood disposed of, then for the same relief second writ petition would not be maintainable.

¶22

In case the petitioners have any grievance remaining with regard to the same dispute, it was open for them to have canvassed the same in the previous writ petition and apart from the above, We find that prayer for direction to the respondents to comply with the judgment of this Court dated 23.01.2025, would not be maintainable and appropriate contempt proceedings can be instituted by them for violating any judgment passed by this Court.

¶23

It is for the aforesaid reasons, We do not find any ground for interference in the matter. Accordingly, present writ petition being devoid of merits is dismissed .

¶24

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

¶25

April 3, 2026

¶26

A. Verma

¶27

Digitally signed by :- ANURAG VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Soni and 5 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Revenue Lko. and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Soni and 5 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Revenue Lko. and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Asha Rani vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Namami Gange and Gramin Jalapoorti Vibhag Lko. and Another

U.O.I. Thru.the Secy. Ministry of Defence,Deptt. of Defence Production and Supplies and 3 Ors. vs Rakesh Singh

Kuldip Singh Sethi vs State of U.P. Thru. the Chief Secy. Lko. and 2 Others

Union of India, Thru. Secy. Ministry of Defence South Block New Delhi and 4 Others vs No 692650 R Mwo (Hfo) Rajesh Kumar Yadav (Retd)

No. 13838612 Ex Sep Bhopal Singh vs U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Ministry of Defence New Delhi and 3 Others

U.O.I. Thru. Prin. Secy. Ministry of Defence New Delhi and 2 Others vs Arvind Kumar Singh (Hav 15397991L)