Dismissed¶18

Becha v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. (Housing and Urban Planning) Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC17 Apr 2026WRIC/3574/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Recorded tenure holder's writ petition challenging Lucknow Development Authority's board fixation over Gata No. 277 Sa, Village Ahamamau, Tehsil Sarojini Nagar, District Lucknow; prayer to strike off LDA's name from revenue records and restore vacant possession dismissed because the land stood acquired with the petitioner's consent and the award was passed and received. Keywords: land acquisition; award; consent; Lucknow Development Authority; revenue records; recorded tenure holder; Gata 277 Sa; possession; writ dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The disputed land already stands acquired in favour of the Lucknow Development Authority and the award has been received by the petitioner. ¶18

Becha vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. (Housing and Urban Planning) Lko. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 3574 of 2026

Becha

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. (Housing And Urban Planning) Lko. And 3 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Rajendra Prasad Yadav Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Ratnesh Chandra

¶9

Court No. - 5

¶10

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

¶11

Heard Sri Rajendra Prasad Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing counsel for the State-respondent No. 1 and Sri Jaiyesh Bhoosreddy, Advocate who has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent os. 2 to 4 which is taken on record.

¶12

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a recorded tenure holder of Gata No. 277 Sa situated at Village Ahamamau, Tehsil – Sarojini Nagar, District Lucknow.

¶13

The grievance raised by the petitioner is that Lucknow Development Authority has fixed its board over the disputed land despite the fact that they do not have any right, title or interest over the said land and accordingly has prayed for a direction to remove the name of Lucknow Development Authority permanently from the revenue records and hand over the vacant possession of the land to the petitioner.

¶14

Learned counsel for Lucknow Development Authority on the basis of instructions received from the concerned Amin stating that the land situated at Gata No. 277 Sa was subject matter of acquisition and consent of the petitioner was also obtained and further that award has also been passed in favour of the petitioner.

¶15

Accordingly, considering that the disputed land already stands acquired in favour of the Lucknow Development Authority and also considering

¶16

WRIC No. 3574 of 2026

¶17

¶18

that the award has also been received by the petitioner, no such direction as prayed by by the petitioner can be passed, the writ petition is bereft of merits and is accordingly dismissed .

¶19

The written instructions filed today are taken on record.

¶20

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

¶21

April 17, 2026

¶22

Ravi/

¶23

Digitally signed by :- RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Becha v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. (Housing and Urban Planning) Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Becha v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. (Housing and Urban Planning) Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nurul Amin vs District Magistrate Balrampur and 2 Others

U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Ministry of Defence New Delhi and 4 Others vs Ex Naik Raj Kumar Dubey

Smt. Geeta Devi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Govt. of U.P. Lko. and 2 Others

Sudhakar Chaurasiya vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Mariya Khatoon vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Revenue Lko. and 6 Others

Smt. Rajeshwari Devi vs Union of India, Thru. Secy. Ministry of Defence, Govt. of India Nw Delhi and 5 Others