Kamal Kishore Seth vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2026)

Kamal Kishore Seth vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty to the petitioner to move the appropriate civil court to adduce evidence and establish his rights over the disputed land; if a case is filed alongwith an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC, the court below may consider and decide the interim-relief application expeditiously in accordance with law.

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition is maintainable under Article 226 despite the disputed question of fact as to whether the disputed land was in fact ever leased/allotted to the petitioner. +1 more

Court's answer

Disputed questions of fact, including whether the said land was in fact ever leased to the petitioner, cannot be considered in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Ratio / Principle

There is no material on record indicating that there is any proposal or notice for demolition of the petitioner's shop.

Key takeaways

The writ petition is dismissed; the petitioner is at liberty to move before the appropriate civil court to adduce evidence to establish his rights over the disputed land.ratio¶¶19
If the petitioner files a case alongwith an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC, the court below may consider and decide the application for interim relief expeditiously in accordance with law.ratio¶¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow (Court No. 5: Alok Mathur and Amitabh Kumar Rai, JJ.), Writ - C No. 3560 of 2026, decided April 17, 2026. The petitioner sought restraint against the respondents from interfering with his peaceful possession of a 20 feet x 20 feet shop (Ms Seth General Store, Sector-B, Telecommunication Officers' Colony, Kapoorthala Main Road, Aliganj, Lucknow), claiming allotment of the open area by order dated 25.1.1978 issued by the Executive Engineer, Lucknow Development Authority, and alleging that the respondents seek demolition of the shop for implementation of the CM Grid Scheme for widening of road. The court observed that there is no material indicating any proposal or notice for demolition; that as per LDA's records the order dated 25.1.1978 is not available and the order does not mention lease rent; and that there is consequently a disputed question of fact as to whether the land was in fact ever leased to the petitioner. Held: such disputed questions of fact cannot be considered in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Writ petition dismissed, with liberty to the petitioner to move the appropriate civil court; if a case is filed alongwith an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC, the court below may consider and decide the interim-relief application expeditiously in accordance with law.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

WRIT - C No. - 3560 of 2026

Kamal Kishore Seth

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Urban Development Deptt. Lko. And 5 Others .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Sajjad Husain, Badar Iftikhar, Kulsoom Firoz Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Ram Ratan, Ratnesh Chandra

Court No. - 5

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

Heard Shri Sajjad Ahmad, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent no 1 and Shri Jaiyesh Bhoosreddy, learned counsel who has filed his vakalatnama today on behalf of respondent no. 6. No one has put in appearance on behalf of Municipal Corporation, Lucknow.

By means of present writ petition the petitioner has sought to restrain the respondents from interfering in peaceful possession of his shop measuring 20 feet x 20 feet under the name and style of Ms Seth General Store situated at Sector -B, Telecommunication Officers' Colony, Kapoorthala Main Road, Aliganj, Lucknow.

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that a 20 feet x 20 feet open area was allotted to the petitioner by means of order dated 25.1.1978 issued by the Executive Engineer of the Lucknow Development Authority. It is on the strength of the said allotment letter the petitioner has stated that he has right and interest in the said land and he cannot be dispossessed from the said land except in accordance with law.

It is the allegation of the petitioner that the respondents are seeking to demolish the said shop for implementation of CM Grid Scheme for widening of road. The petitioner has himself voluntarily shifted his shop

WRIC No. 3560 of 2026

2

12 meters away from the main road.

There is no material indicating that there is any proposal or notice for demolition of the said shop. Apart from the above learned counsel for Lucknow Development Authority has submitted that as per their records the order dated 25.1.1978 is not available and therefore it cannot be said that the Lucknow Development Authority has given the said land to the petitioner.

Apart from the above there is no mention of the lease rent on the said order and accordingly there is disputed question of facts as to whether the said land was in fact ever leased to the petitioner.

These disputed question of facts cannot be considered in proceedings under Article 226 of Constitution of India. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed .

The petitioner is at liberty to move before appropriate civil court to adduce evidence in case he wishes to establish his rights over the disputed land.

It is provided that in case the petitioner files a case alongwith application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC then the court below may consider and decide the application for interim relief expeditiously in accordance with law.

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

April 17, 2026

J. K. Dinkar

Digitally signed by :- JESHU KUMAR DINKAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench