Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:4229-DB Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 11422 of 2024 Petitioner :- Ramashrey Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Rajya Sampatti Vibhag Govt. Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Devendra Upadhyay,Anita Bansal,Sanjay Kumar Mishra,Suraj Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J. Heard. The petitioner was allotted a Government accommodation on 01.10.2015 wherein the period was not specified. On 19.08.2016, a notice was given to the petitioner to pay the rent and arrears of rent and vacate the premises, but the same was not vacated. Thereafter, another notice was given, as claimed by the Standing Counsel, on 05.12.2016, yet the premises was not vacated. Ultimately, a notice dated 19.08.2021 was given under Section 4(2) of the Act, 2010 to which the petitioner submitted a reply which has been considered and an order has been passed on 20.09.2024 again raising a claim of about Rs. 7 lakhs and odd, thereafter, recovery proceedings have been initiated and this petition has been filed. After hearing the parties what comes out is that though some notice was issued to the petitioner initially on 19.08.2016 but according to the petitioner, it was served to him only in December, 2018, a fact which is being refuted by learned Standing Counsel and in support thereof, he has put forth a document dated 07.09.2016 before us, which is the receiving of the petitioner. Thereafter, a fresh notice was issued to the petitioner on 19.08.2021 under Section 4(2) of the U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Certain Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 2010'). The petitioner responded to the said notice dated 19.08.2021 and thereafter, an order was passed on 20.09.2024 annexing therewith the details of the calculation and the amount payable to the petitioner Rs. 7,23,185.88/-. This has not been challenged before us. However, thereafter, a recovery notice has been issued. It is only then that this petition has been filed challenging the entire proceedings of recovery. On being asked, it is informed that entire proceeding under the Act, 2010 has been challenged. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that one opportunity be given to the petitioner to submit a response to the order dated 20.09.2024 and the calculation annexed with it as to what is the illegality in the impugned action to the Estate Officer who shall consider and decide it with a reasoned and speaking order giving the basis for the recovery and the amount sought to be recovered with reference to relevant facts and provisions of law. This exercise shall be completed within a period of three weeks. The petitioner should submit his response within a period of one week. The decision shall be taken as aforesaid within the next two weeks and communicated to the petitioner. For a period of three weeks or till a decision is taken by the Estate Officer, the recovery impugned herein shall not be given effect. However, if the decision goes against the petitioner, then it shall be open for the opposite parties to proceed to recover the amount in question, subject to a further right of challenge to the petitioner, if there is a cause. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Order Date :- 22.1.2025 Lokesh Kumar [Manish Kumar, J.] [Rajan Roy, J.] Digitally signed by :- LOKESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench