BHULAI KUMAR YADAV v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. HOUSING AND URBAN PLANNING LKO AND 4 OTHERS
WRIC/2751/2025 · 2025-03-21
Om Prakash Shukla, Rajan Roy
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 125825 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 125825 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:16389-DB Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 2751 of 2025 Petitioner :- Bhulai Kumar Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Housing And Urban Planning Lko And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Jaleel Ahmad,Rayees Ahmad Khan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ratnesh Chandra Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J.
1. Power filed today by Shri Shreyash Agrawal, Advocate on behalf of opposite party No.2 to 5 is taken on record.
2. Heard.
3. By means of this petition, the petitioner has challenged a letter dated 23.07.2019 by Tehsildar-Acquisition, Lucknow Development Authority, Lucknow addressed to him by which the decision of the Board dated 24.10.2016 regarding his claim for providing him alternate plot for his land, which was acquired has been declined. The aforesaid letter says that the said decision was communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 28.11.2016. Moreover, we find that there is another letter annexed by the petitioner himself to this writ petition as Annexure 11 dated 25.10.2008, which is addressed to the Principal Secretary to the Governor of U.P. and a copy thereof has also been sent to the petitioner-Bhulai Kumar Yadav, Governor Campus Rajbhawan, Lucknow. It appears that the petitioner was posted and working within the campus of Governor's House, Uttar Pradesh that is why this communication was made. We are now in the year 2025 and apart from the fact that disputed question of facts are involved as to whether there was any house existing prior to the acquisition of the land in question or not and the opposite parties say that there was none, there is inordinate delay in approaching this Court, therefore, this is not a fit case for exercising our extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, however, if the petitioner has any other remedy available in law, he can avail it uninfluenced by our observations made hereinabove.
4. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of. (Om Prakash Shukla, J.) (Rajan Roy, J.) Order Date :- 21.3.2025 -Piyush- Digitally signed by :- PIYUSH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench