HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 7743 of 2023 Court No. - 7 HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J. 1. Heard Mr. Sajjad Husain, learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel for opposite parties. 2. Rejoinder affidavit filed today is taken on record. 3. Petition has been filed challenging order dated 10.08.2023 whereby petitioner was placed under suspension in contemplation of departmental inquiry. 4. The preliminary ground raised for challenging the impugned order is that it has been passed by the authority who lacks jurisdiction. 5. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that it is in fact the Director, Land Acquisition Directorate, Board of Revenue, U.P., Lucknow who is the appointing authority of petitioner whereas impugned order has been passed by the Commissioner-cum-Secretary. He has adverted to judgment rendered in earlier writ petitions filed by petitioner, Writ-A No.6536 of 2024, Balwan Singh Yadav v. State of U.P. and others as well as Writ-A No. 8752 of 2025, Balwan Singh Yadav v. State of U.P. and others to submit that the aforesaid issue has already been adjudicated upon by this Court holding the Director, Land Acquisition Directorate, Board of U.P., Lucknow to be the competent authority for being the appointing authority of petitioner. 6. Learned State Counsel has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner that there is no comment mentioning Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Shrawan Kumar Verma, Ashwini Kumar Singh, Kulsoom Firoz, Sajjad Husain, Satendra Jaiswal Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Balwan Singh Yadav .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Revenue Lko. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) appointing authority in the Government Order dated 04.07.1987 whereas the impugned order has been passed on the basis of serious allegations of forgery with regard to submission of medical bills pertaining to wife of petitioner. 7. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on material on record, it is evident that the impugned order has been passed by the Commissioner-cum- Secretary of the Land Acquisition Office, Board of Revenue. 8. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Writ-A No. 6536 of 2024 has already held that appointing authority of petitioner is the Director, Land Acquisition and not the Commissioner-cum-Secretary. The said judgment has thereafter been followed in Writ-A No. 8752 of 2025 as follows:- "10. So far as the aspect of competence of jurisdiction of the authority is concerned, the said aspect has already been considered and decided by Coordinate Bench of this court in earlier writ petition i.e. writ A No. 6536 of 2024, Balwan Singh Yadav versus State of UP and others. The judgement clearly indicates a satisfaction being recorded by the learned Judge that it is the Director, Land Acquisition Department, who is the competent authority. This court does not find any occasion to take a contrary view since the said judgment has admittedly attained finality." 9.Since the aforesaid issue already stands concluded vide two judgments of this Court that the appointing authority of petitioner is in fact Director, Land Acquisition and the impugned order having been passed by the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, the same is clearly without jurisdiction. 10. In view of aforesaid, the impugned order dated 10.08.2023 is hereby quashed by issuance of a Writ in the nature of Certiorari. Consequence to follow. Liberty however is granted to the competent authority to pass orders afresh, if required. 11. Resultantly, petition succeeds and is allowed. Parties to bear their own costs. December 5, 2025 lakshman WRIA No. 7743 of 2023 2 (Manish Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- LAKSHMANA KUMAR TAMMANA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench