HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 33258 of 2025 Court No. - 40 HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J. HON'BLE AMITABH KUMAR RAI, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. Considering the nature of the order being passed in the present writ petition, this Court does not deem it necessary to issue notice to respondent nos. 2 and 3 at this stage. 3. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- "(i) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction to call for records and set aside the Impugned Order i.e., Letter No. 332/िव0 रा0/2025-26 dated 30.08.2025 passed by Respondent No. 3 (Annexure No. 1); (ii) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction to call for records and set aside the Impugned decision of the Board dated 09.04.2025 i.c., Resolution "ख" communicated through Letter No. 2911/सा० प्र0/2025 - 26 (Annexure No. 2);" 4. The case of the petitioner is that he was allotted a piece of land measuring 20 x 20 square yards by order dated 01.12.2018. It is stated that the petitioner has been in possession of the said land since the date of allotment and has constructed a boundary wall thereon. It appears that, on the allegation that the petitioner has encroached upon a public well within the allotted land, thereby violated the terms and conditions of the allotment, the allotment was cancelled by the impugned order dated 30.08.2025. 5. Challenging the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioner submits Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Amaresh Chandra Tiwari, Ujjawal Satsangi Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Gulab Chandra .....Petitioner(s) State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) that the impugned order is punitive in nature and has been passed without affording the petitioner any notice or opportunity of hearing. It is further submitted that in response to the show cause notice, the petitioner submitted a reply, dated 09.06.2025 (at page 27 of the writ petition), wherein he categorically stated that neither the complaint nor the inspection report, which allegedly formed the basis of the cancellation, was ever supplied to him. 6. It is submitted that the impugned order does not deal with the specific contentions raised in the petitioner's reply, and thus has been passed in a mechanical manner, without application of mind. Accordingly, it is contended that the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. 7. Learned Standing Counsel though has tried to defend the impugned order but could not demonstrate from the impugned order that any reasons were assigned for rejecting the petitioner's reply dated 09.06.2025, nor that the materials relied upon by the authority were ever provided to the petitioner. 8. In view of the submission advanced by the counsel for the petitioner, the writ petition is disposed off with liberty to the petitioner to file a detailed representation against the impugned order dated 30.08.2025 before respondent no.3 within a period of one month from today. In case, such a representation is filed, respondent no.3 shall consider and decide the same strictly in accordance with law, after giving due notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, and after supplying all the materials which the respondent no.3 wishes to rely upon against the petitioner within a period of two months thereafter. 9. It is further provided that no demolition proceeding nor any eviction proceedings shall be taken against the petitioner till the disposal of representation. 10. The impugned order dated 30.08.2025, which is under challenge in the present writ petition, shall abide by the final decision to be taken by respondent no.3 on the petitioner's representation. September 22, 2025 Gaurav WRIC No. 33258 of 2025 2 (Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) (Saral Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- GAURAV PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad