Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 179004 (ALL)

SUBHASH GAUTAM v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. HOUSING URBAN PLANNING U.P. LKO. AND 3 OTHERS

/11890/2025 · 2025-12-09

Amitabh Kumar Rai, Sangeeta Chandra

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 11890 of 2025 Court No. - 2 HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J. HON'BLE AMITABH KUMAR RAI, J. 1. Vakalatnama filed today by Shri Amit Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel on behalf of respondent No.3- Nagar Nigam, Lucknow is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel, who appears on behalf of State-respondent Nos.1, 2, 4 and Shri Amit Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3. 3. This petition has been filed with the following prayers :- "I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby commanding and directing the opposite parties not to make further construction in pursuance of measurement made earlier till the disposal of further suit filed before the civil court for the possession and measurement of the disputed land which is required to be made by independent measurement agency by the order of the civil court, in the interest of justice. II. Issue such any other order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem, fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the petitioner. III. Allow this writ petition in favour of the petitioner with cost." 4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that after having obtained power of attorney from the recorded tenure holders of Gata Nos.1227, 1228, 1228 Min, 1229 and 1239 situated in Village Amrayi Gaon, Tehsil and District Lucknow, the petitioner is challenging the ex parte measurement which was done by the respondent- Nagar Nigam and the revenue authorities without notice to the petitioner and without following the rules. They have decreased 27,000 square feet of Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Shiv Pal Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Namit Sharma Subhash Gautam .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Housing Urban Planning U.P. Lko. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) area from the petitioner's land. The measurement of the disputed land was made on the direction of this Court on 24.06.2020 in Writ Petition No.10127 (M/B) of 2020. The Nagar Nigam should have issued notice and ensured its service, but initially it did issue notice; however, on the date mentioned, no measurement could take place due to lack of availability of record with the Lekhpal. The second date was fixed on 20.09.2021 by the order of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Lucknow, but this time no service was made on the petitioner or on their power of attorney. 5. It has been further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner intends to file a civil suit against the Nagar Nigam and the revenue authorities, as respondents, for a direction for measurement and possession of the property in question, for which a notice under Section 80 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) has been delivered to Nagar Nigam and Principal Secretary, Revenue and other proposed dependents on 14.10.2025. 6. However, since there is a waiting period in the filing of the said suit after giving notice under Section 80 CPC, this petition has been filed only so that this Court may direct, as an interim measure, that no construction be carried out by the respondents on the land in question, as the petitioner may suffer irreparable loss if construction takes place even before the suit is filed. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused pleadings on record, we find no good ground to show interference as prayed for. 8. The Supreme Court has observed in the case of State of Orissa vs. Madan Gopal Rungta reported in 1951 SCC 1024 : 1951 SCC OnLine SC 63 that if a civil suit is maintainable and is proposed to be filed or is directed to be filed, till such time such civil court is filed and ad-interim injunction is granted by the competent court, no interim relief can be granted in a writ petition which itself is not maintainable. 9. The writ petition is dismissed. December 9, 2025 Shubhankar WRIC No. 11890 of 2025 2 (Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) (Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHUBHANKAR THAKUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench