Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:41796-DB Court No. - 40 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6605 of 2025 Petitioner :- Anuj Chaudhary Respondent :- Union Of India And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Yash Padia Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Anurag Shrivastava,Archana Singh,Gaurav Kumar Chand Hon'ble Shekhar B. Saraf,J. Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J. 1. Heard Sri Yash Padia, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Archana Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No.2, Sri Vinod Shankar Tripathi, Advocate holding brief of Sri Anurag Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of caveator who is not impleaded as party, however he has been heard as per Chapter 22 Rule 5-A of the High Court Rules, 1952 and Sri Gaurav Kumar Chand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1. 2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 27.09.2024 whereby the candidature of the petitioner has been rejected by the Corporation. 3. It appears from the record that the land offered by the petitioner being covered by Gata Nos. 26, 29, 30 and 32 was co-owned by his father and five uncles. Admittedly, the share of the petitioner's father was 231.66 square meter which was much less than the area of the land offered, i.e. 400 square meter. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner complied with the requirement of submitting consent letter in Appendix-III, the Corporation was not justified in rejecting his candidature. He also submits that after submitting the application form, a gift deed was executed by petitioner's three uncles which conferred ownership on the petitioner's father namely Surendra Singh over and above the requirement of the Corporation. 5. Per contra, Ms. Archana Singh, learned counsel for the respondent Corporation submits that the brochure governing the selection clearly provides that in case land offered by a candidate is owned by family members along with other owners, the share of the applicant and/or family members should be more than or equal to land required by the Corporation and the consent letter submitted in Appendix-III is an additional requirement. She has referred Clause-4(vi)(m)(3) at the internal page No.-8 of the concerned brochure in this regard. 6. We have gone through the brochure. Clause 4 (vi)(h) describes "family members". Notably, father is included in the said list, however uncles are not. Therefore, the case of the petitioner falls within Clause-4(vi)(m)(3)(third bullet point) of the brochure. Therefore, on the date of submission of application form, the extent of co-ownership of the petitioner's father should have been more than or equal to 400 square meter, which was the requirement for the site. 7. Admittedly, the petitioner's father acquired ownership after submission of application and, therefore, we are of the view that mere submission of consent letter in Appendix-III would not suffice the legal requirements contemplated. 8. Apparently, the father, being family member of the petitioner, was not having the ownership equal to or above 400 square meter on the date of application form and, therefore, subsequent acquisition of ownership at the strength of gift deed would not come for the rescue of the petitioner. 9. For all the aforesaid reasons we do not find any error in rejection of the petitioner's candidature. 10. The writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 21.3.2025 Virendra (Kshitij Shailendra, J.) (Shekhar B. Saraf, J.) Digitally signed by :- VIRENDRA KUMAR BHARTEEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad