Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 160880 (ALL)

RAM DUTT CHAUBEY AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. ADDL. CHIEF SECY. P.W.D. LKO. AND 3 OTHERS

CMRA/101/2025 · 2025-09-25

Jaspreet Singh, Rajan Roy

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION No. - 101 of 2025 Court No. - 1 HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J. HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J. 1. Heard Shri Prabhat Kumar Upadhyay, learned counsel for the applicants and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State. 2. This is a review application for reviewing of the judgment and order dated 30.07.2025 passed by this Court in Writ - C No. 6839 of 2025. 3. The only ground on which review of our judgement dated 30.07.2025 has been sought is that in Writ - C No. 8286 of 2022 the specific averment made by the by the petitioner was that widening of the road was taking place in the said year, therefore, there was no question of any delay, however, we find that in our judgment we have categorically observed- "there is nothing before us to establish that widening took place and in addition to the land utilized in 2006 some more land was utilized. The report dated 08.08.2023 also does not dwell on this aspect of the matter and in fact, it is could not, considering the nature of the proceedings." The learned Standing Counsel's case was that it was not widening but upgradation. Further, we have observed that looking into the disputed questions of facts it is not possible for us to adjudicate the Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Prabhat Kumar Upadhyay, Pragya Pandey, Rama Shankar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party(s): C.S.C. Ram Dutt Chaubey And Another .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. P.W.D. Lko. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) aforesaid issue or consider the relief prayed for. Moreover, our judgment refers to the stand of the State that in the earlier writ petition petitioner had admitted to verbal consent for construction of the Road in 2006 on his land in the reports which were on record, a fact which could not be denied, therefore, we see no reason to review our judgment. 4. Accordingly, the review application is dismissed. . September 25, 2025 R.K.P. CMRA No. 101 of 2025 2 (Jaspreet Singh,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAJ KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench