Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:48444-DB Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 7838 of 2025 Petitioner :- Abdul Suhail Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Nagar Vikas Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinay Misra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sriniwas Bajpai Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J. Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J. 1. Heard Pt. S. Chandra, Advocate, who has filed power on behalf of the petitioner, and Sri Sriniwas Bajpai, learned counsel for the respondent no.4. 2. This petition has been filed with the following main prayer:- "Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the notice dated 30.10.2024 so issued by the Executive Officer Nagar Palika Parishad Khairabad, District- Sitapur, contained as Annexure No.1 to this writ petition, in the interest of justice." 3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had initially approached this Court in Writ-C No.5632 of 2023:Abdul Suhail Alias Mohd. Suhail Ansari Vs. State of U.P. and others, challenging a similar notice dated 23.06.2023 issued by the Executive Officer of the respondent no.4 and also the notice dated 07.06.2023 issued by the Prescribed Authority, Regulated Area/City Magistrate, District Sitapur, wherein it was stated that the petitioner had constructed a house over some land situated in Mohalla Turkpatti, Khairabad, District Sitapur, which was nazul land. The petitioner was required to furnish all relevant documents and in case documents were not produced then legal action would be taken against the petitioner. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has stated that this Court in its order dated 11.07.2023 had observed that the notice did not indicate over which land construction of house had been made by the petitioner and was vague in nature, therefore, it could not be said that adequate opportunity was given to the noticee to place his case. The notice also did not indicate as to what action was intended to be taken against the petitioner. No prima facie fact finding enquiry has been detailed in the said notice dated 23.06.2023, therefore, the Court set aside the notices dated 23.06.2023 and 07.06.2023 and allowed the writ petition to this extent and at the same time this Court left it upon to the authorities to take appropriate action permissible under law after issuing appropriate notice keeping in view the observations made by this Court in its order dated 11.07.2023. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also stated that respondents have also initiated proceeding under the Public Premises Act before the Prescribed Authority against the petitioner where the petitioner has appeared and filed his objections. 6. It has been submitted that impugned notice dated 30.10.2024 has been issued in purported compliance of this Court's observation made in its order dated 11.07.2023. However, again the notice is vague. It has also been stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent nos.3 & 4 are proceeding on the basis of the Uttar Pradesh Nazul Properties (Management and Utilization for Public Purposes) Ordinance, 2024, which Ordinance has lapsed. 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.4 has stated that the respondent no.4 is acting in pursuance of authority given under the U.P. Municipalities Act, and not under the Ordinance of 2024 as the initial notice was issued in 2023 which was challenged by the petitioner and the notice was quashed only because it did not contain sufficient details by this Court in its order dated 11.07.2023. 8. It has been submitted that this Court itself had granted liberty to the respondent to proceed afresh by means of issuance of detailed notice which the respondent no.4 has issued in compliance of this Court's order dated 11.07.2023. 9. It has also been submitted that against the notice dated 30.10.2024, the writ petitioner had filed a Civil Suit in which objections were filed by the Nagar Palika Parishad Khairabad, alongwith an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the C.P.C. The objection of the Nagar Palika Parishad was allowed. The Suit was dismissed. The petitioner has filed an Appeal before the District Judge against such order of dismissal of Suit, which is pending. 10. These facts have been admitted by the petitioner in his writ petition. 11. However, on a specific query being made to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether the petitioner has submitted any reply to the notice dated 30.10.2024, it has been submitted that the petitioner has not replied to the said notice till date. 12. The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to submit a detailed reply to the notice dated 30.10.2024 within ten days from today. If such a reply is filed within time as prescribed by this Court, the respondent no.4 shall pass a reasoned and speaking order on such reply within a further period of four weeks. Order Date :- 19.8.2025 Rahul Digitally signed by :- RAHUL TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench