BALBEER AND 3 OTHERS v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. SECY. HOUSING URBAN PLANNING DEPTT. AND 6 OTHERS
/11501/2025 · 2025-11-26
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 174932 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 174932 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 11501 of 2025 Court No. - 2 HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J.
HON'BLE RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN MISHRA, J.
1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel who appears on behalf of the State-Respondent nos.1, 2, 3, 4 and 7 and Shri Ratnesh Chandra who appears for the LDA, the Respondent nos.5 and 6. 2. This petition has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayers:-
"i) To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing the Opposite party no.1 to take the appropriate action upon the application of the petitioner dated 14.11.2025 which is contained as Annexure No.1, in the interest of justice. ii) To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing the Opposite parties not to demolish the house of the petitioners, in the interest of justice. iii) Any other such order or direction which deem fit and proper may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner."
3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioners' house is situated on Gata No.97 in Village Puraniya, Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Shobha Rajpoot, Shiv Shankar Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Ratnesh Chandra Balbeer And 3 Others .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Housing Urban Planning Deptt. And 6 Others .....Respondent(s)
Tehsil Sadar, District Sitapur (wrongly typed actually in District Lucknow) and the Respondents i.e. the LDA and its employees are demolishing the house of the petitioners on the ground that Plot No.97 has already been acquired by the Government and has been transferred the same to the LDA. The petitioners have earlier filed Writ Petition namely Writ-C No.2000091 (L/A) of 2014 [Manju Devi Vs. State of U.P. and others] in which the Respondents have filed their counter affidavit. The said writ petition is pending. Now demolition has been carried out on the ground that the land was acquired and taken possession in 1988 whereas the actual physical possession of the petitioners is on the said land. Originally the land was recorded in the name of Puran Chand son of Kallu, who died. Later on, his legal heirs' names including the petitioners were recorded in the Khatauni for 1419-1424 Fasli. 4.
Khata No.65 Khasra No.97 situated in Village Puraniya, Pargana, Tehsil and District Lucknow, had been acquired in part only but such acquisition lapsed by operation of Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and therefore, land cannot be said to have been vested in the State Government and transferred to the LDA legally. 5. We have gone through the pleadings on record. In Paragraph-9 of the writ petition, the petitioners have stated that Notification under Section 4/17 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 24.02.1986 and Notification under Section 6/17 of the Act was issued on 25.02.1986 with respect to Village Puraniya, Pargana, Tehsil and District Lucknow. Some part of Khasra No.97 was acquired. In Paragraph-10 it has been stated that Award was also declared on
27.05.1988. 6. It has been submitted that as is evident from a perusal of the Award filed as Annexure-6 to the petition an area of 5 Biswas where there was situated a Shiv Temple, was not acquired. 7. The petitioners' house is situated on such 5 Biswa of land. 8. The writ petition is misconceived. It appears that the petitioners WRIC No. 11501 of 2025 2
have not gone through the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Indoor Development Authority Vs. Manohar Lal reported in (2020) Volume 8 SCC 129. 9. The Award was declared within two years of the acquisition and taking possession by invoking the urgency clause. Such acquisition cannot be treated to have lapsed under Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 10. The writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to file an appropriate application in the pending writ petition i.e. Writ Petition No.91 (L/A) of 2014 renumbered as Writ-C No.2000091 (L/A) of 2014 [Manju Devi Vs. State of U.P. and others]. November 26, 2025 N.PAL WRIC No. 11501 of 2025 3 (Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.) (Mrs.
Sangeeta Chandra,J.) Digitally signed by :- NARESH PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench