Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 192348 (ALL)

SARVESH KUMAR v. STATE OF U. P. AND 5 OTHERS.

WRIC/36280/2025 · 2025-10-16

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 36280 of 2025 Court No. - 3 HON'BLE SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, J. HON'BLE INDRAJEET SHUKLA, J. 1. Heard Sri Devendra Deo Gupta learned counsel for the petitioner, Mohd. Afzal learned counsel for RERA, Om Subhash Tripathi learned counsel for Prayagraj Development Authority and Sri Mukul Tripathi learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2. Present writ petition has been filed for the following relief: "Issue a writ of certiorari quash the impugned recovery certificate dt. 06.8.2025 (Annexure No.21) issued by respondent no. 5, Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Navin Bhawan, Kalakankar House Purana Haidarabad, Lucknow against the respondent no. 2 for recovery of Rs. 31,81,219/- for payment to the respondent no. 6." 3. Undeniably, private respondent No. 6 namely Ms. Shalini Gupta had instituted proceedings before RERA against Prayagraj Development Authority (then known as ADA). The claim petition filed by the private respondent came to be allowed vide order dated 09.02.2024. It has attained finality. Accordingly, recovery of the awarded amount is being pursued against Prayagraj Development Authority. 4. At this stage, present petitioner who happens to be the estranged husband of respondent No. 6 has approached this Court to obstruct the recovery of money being pursued by respondent No. 6. 5. On query made, learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Devendra Deo Gupta Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Harsh Vardhan Gupta, Mohd. Afzal Sarvesh Kumar .....Petitioner(s) State Of U. P. And 5 Others. .....Respondent(s) the claim petition was filed by private respondent No. 6 in her own capacity. To that extent, petitioner is a stranger to those proceedings. 6. In view of the above, we find the petition to be wholly misconceived. It is accordingly dismissed leaving it open to the petitioner to seek resolution of his matrimonial and other disputes, in accordance with law. No order as to costs. October 17, 2025 Faraz WRIC No. 36280 of 2025 2 (Indrajeet Shukla,J.) (Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- FARAZ AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad