Mohammad Akbar and 4 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayati Raj Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 3925 of 2026

¶3

Mohammad Akbar And 4 Others

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayati Raj Deptt. Lko. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s)

¶7

Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Akanksha Gupta, Singh	Anurag Singh, Yogesh
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C.

¶8

Court No. - 5

¶9

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

¶10

Heard Ms. Akanksha Gupta and Sri Anurag Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

¶11

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that certain shops within the block premises of Akbarpur, District Ambedkar Nagar, were given on lease by the Kshetra Panchayat Samiti under a scheme and the predecessors-in-interest of petitioner nos. 1, 2 and 3 were allotted shops vide letter dated 12.04.1991, while the predecessors-in-interest of petitioner nos. 4 and 5 were allotted shops much earlier, sometime between 1975 and 1980, under the policy. There is no dispute that all the original allottees have died and the present petitioners claim themselves to be the legal heirs of the allottees and in the aforesaid circumstances have approached this Court challenging the order dated 08.04.2026 passed by the S.D.M./Block Development Officer, Akbarpur, Ambedkar Nagar, wherein, with regard to the ten shops mentioned therein, it has been stated that the original allottees have died and subsequently no lease rent has been deposited against the said shops, and hence orders have been passed for cancellation of allotment.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the predecessors-ininterest of the petitioners were validly allotted the shops on lease and further states that certain amounts towards the lease rent have also been deposited. Their further grievance is that no reasons or account

¶13

WRIC No. 3925 of 2026

¶14

2

¶15

statements have been provided by the respondents asking the petitioners to deposit the outstanding amount of lease rent as mentioned against the petitioners in the impugned order dated 08.04.2026.

¶16

Learned Standing Counsel has opposed the writ petition and submits that the allotment was made in favour of the original allottees and there is no provision that the said allotment was heritable. Apart from this, once a notice for cancellation of the allotment is given, it may be treated to be a valid notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, and even any shop given on lease by the State authorities can be got cancelled as per the provisions contained in the Transfer of Property Act. To that extent, it is submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order dated 08.04.2026.

¶17

Considering the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the considered view that the present controversy entails disputed questions of fact where, on one hand, the petitioners have yet to establish that they are the legal heirs of the original allottees and also that the allotment was heritable in nature, while on the other hand, we find that prima facie a case is made out in favour of the State for cancellation of the allotments on account of non-payment of lease rent and also on account of the fact that the original allottees have died. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of the view that the petitioners should file a suit for permanent injunction before the court of competent jurisdiction where they can seek an injunction against the respondents.

¶18

Accordingly, without entering into the merits of the controversy, we relegate the petitioners to their alternative remedy of filing a suit against the respondents where the petitioners will be able to demonstrate their right, interest or title in the disputed property and also as to whether the lease was heritable in nature or not.

¶19

Considering the fact that the allotment has been in existence for more than three and a half decades, an interim protection is granted to the petitioners that no coercive action shall be taken against them for the next four months.

¶20

Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of with liberty to the

¶21

WRIC No. 3925 of 2026

¶22

3

¶23

petitioners to institute suit proceedings within one month along with an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. In case such a suit is filed, the competent court shall consider and decide their application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 within two months thereafter in accordance with law, and in case the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 cannot be decided or there is any legal impediment, it shall be open for the petitioners to press an application for ad interim injunction in case a case is made out.

¶24

It is clarified that the protection granted by this Court shall continue for a period of four months from today and shall cease to exist on the expiry of the aforesaid period, after which the interim injunction, if any, granted by the civil court shall prevail.

¶25

The petitioners also undertake to deposit the outstanding amount of lease rent as mentioned in the impugned order dated 08.04.2026 and also annex the receipt in the suit filed by them. It is further made clear that the amount so deposited by the petitioners in pursuance of the order of this Court shall be subject to the outcome of the civil suit, and if the petitioners are able to demonstrate that excess money has been charged towards lease rent, they shall make an appropriate prayer in the suit proceedings, which shall be decided by the learned trial court in accordance with law.

¶26

May 1, 2026 Ashish Dewal

¶27

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

¶28

Digitally signed by :- ASHISH DEWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mohammad Akbar and 4 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayati Raj Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammad Akbar and 4 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayati Raj Deptt. Lko. 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

Similar cases

Naresh Kumar Yadav and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Energy U.P. Lko. and 5 Others

Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Defence , New Delhi and Others vs Jc 702100W Ex Sub. Skt Gopal Singh Chauhan of 4033 Fd. Hosp.

Dileep Saroj and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko. and 9 Others

Shashank Giri and Another vs Poonam Giri and 2 Others

Ram Murat Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Govt. of U.P. Lko. and 14 Others

Brijbhushan vs State Election Commission U.P. Thru. Chief Election Officer Lko and 3 Others