Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 86473 (ALL)

RAKESH SINGH YADAV AND 7 OTHERS v. STATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

WRIC/28051/2025 · 2025-09-07

Amitabh Kumar Rai, Mahesh Chandra Tripathi

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 28051 of 2025 Court No. - 29 HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J. HON'BLE AMITABH KUMAR RAI, J. 1. Heard Sri Rajan Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Devesh Vikram, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Shri Ravi Anand Agarwal, learned counsel for the U.P. Avas and Vikas Parishad. 2. The instant writ petition is preferred for a direction, commanding the respondents authorities to allot residential plot in favour of petitioners under the De-Housing Scheme in pursuance of the policy laid down by the respondents authorities as provided in Avas Vikas Parishad Niyamvali-2003. It is also prayed for a direction, the respondents authorities not to create any third party right over vacant plot nos. 4/1031, 4/1032 and 1/140, NPH-15, H- 874 and 1/836, HIG-185, 3/1559, 1/123 and EC-22, situated in Avas Vikas Colony, Ambedkaruram, Kalyanpur, Kanpur Nagar. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it is not in dispute that the land belonging to the petitioners was acquired under the Avas Vikas Parishad Niyamavali, 2003. He further submits that a rehabilitation scheme has been initiated by the Avas Vikas Parishad and has placed reliance on a Gazette Notification dated 16.07.2016 in support of his contention. It is further submitted that the State Government has also issued a notification dated 21.01.2015, directing all Development Authorities and the Avas Vikas Parishad to ensure rehabilitation of land-losers in accordance with the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. It is submitted that the said benefit is also applicable to acquisitions made under the repealed Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Rajan Tripathi Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Nipun Singh Rakesh Singh Yadav And 7 Others .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also placed reliance upon various communications appended along with the writ petition to show that the petitioners' claim is under active consideration by the competent authorities, but no decision has been taken so far. Specific reliance has been placed on a communication dated 13.02.2025, whereby relief has been extended to one Shri Rakesh Singh Yadav, who is stated to be similarly situated. 5. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners confines his prayer and submits that the grievance of the petitioners may be directed to be considered and redressed by respondent no.1 – the Secretary/Additional Housing Commissioner, U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, M.G. Marg, Lucknow. 6. Per contra, Shri Ravi Anand Agarwal, learned counsel for the U.P. Avas and Vikas Parishad has resisted the relief and submits that under the 2016 scheme, registration is mandatory. He contends that there is nothing on record to demonstrate that the petitioners had applied pursuant to the notification dated 16.07.2016. However, he seeks some time to file a detailed reply/objection in the matter. 7. Having considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and the limited prayer now pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioners, We are of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served in keeping the writ petition pending. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the consent of the parties, with the observation that in case the petitioners file a detailed representation ventilating their grievance before the competent authority, i.e., the Secretary/Additional Housing Commissioner, U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, M.G. Marg, Lucknow (respondent no.1), within two weeks from today, the same shall be considered and decided in accordance with law, expeditiously and preferably within a period of three months from the date of filing of such representation. September 8, 2025 Gaurav WRIC No. 28051 of 2025 2 (Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.) Digitally signed by :- GAURAV PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad