Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 185222 (ALL)

LAL BAHADUR YADAV AND 2 OTHERS v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. SECY. AVAS SHAHRI NIYOJAN LKO. AND 4 OTHERS

WRIC/10369/2025 · 2025-11-10

Prashant Kumar, Shekhar B Saraf

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 10369 of 2025 Court No. - 3 HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J. HON'BLE PRASHANT KUMAR, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the writ petitioner has made following main prayer(s): "(i) a suitable writ, order or direction declaring Section 6(1), 11, 17(1), 17(3-A) and Section 17(4) as ultravires the Constitution of India. (ii) a suitable writ, order or direction declaring Section 2 of the U. P. Act No. VIII of 1974, Sections and Section 4, & 6 of the Land Acquisition Act No. 1 of 1994 applicable at the relevant point of time as violative and ultravires of Article 14, 15, 19 and 21. (iii) a suitable, writ, order or direction quashing notification dated 31/03/2005, under Section 4(1) of the Act declaration dated 24/10/2005 under Section 6 contained in Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition. (iv) a suitable writ, order or direction directing the opposite parties not to demolish structure/house/shops of the petitioners and after compounding the structures a suitable development Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Naqibullah Khan, Prabha Avdesh Sahay Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., A.S.G.I., Ratnesh Chandra Lal Bahadur Yadav And 2 Others .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Avas Shahri Niyojan Lko. And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) charge will be taken from the petitioners." 3. Shri Ratnesh Chandra, learned counsel for the Lucknow Development Authority submits that present writ petition has been filed after an inordinate delay of 20 years. He further submits that the proceedings have been completed in 2006 and the award against the petitioner was pronounced on September 24, 2009. 4. In light of the above submissions, we are of the view that the petitioner has no longer locus standi to file present writ petition and there is no explanation for the inordinate delay in filing this writ petition. 5. Accordingly, we do not see it fit to interfere in this writ petition after a gap of 20 years and the writ petition is dismissed. November 10, 2025 Anupam S/- WRIC No. 10369 of 2025 2 (Prashant Kumar,J.) (Shekhar B. Saraf,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANUPAM SINGH PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench