HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 17858 of 2026 Court No. - 4 HON'BLE NEERAJ TIWARI, J. HON'BLE SUDHANSHU CHAUHAN, J. 1. Heard Shri Kamlesh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for respondents no. 1,2 and 3 and Shri Sant Ram Sharma, Advocate along with Shri Sunil Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for respondent no.4. 2. It has been contended, inter alia, by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the notice dated 16.04.2026 was issued directing a reply within three days, seeking the cancellation of a lease agreement intended to last for 30 years. Learned counsel submitted that no provision of law validates such a notice where only three days are granted for response. It is further argued that, although a reply to the notice was submitted and rejected, the notice was invalid from the outset; therefore, the impugned order is flawed and deserves to be set aside. 3. Confronted with the above arguments, learned counsel for Respondent No. 4 was unable to point to any legal provision allowing notice to be issued granting only three days to cancel a lease agreement valid for a period of 30 years. 4. In view of these facts, the petition is allowed on this ground alone, and the impugned order dated 25.04.2026 is set aside; however, the concerned respondent is at liberty to issue a fresh Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Kamlesh Kumar Tiwari, Kripa Shankar Pandey Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Sant Ram Sharma Sudhir Kumar Tiwari And 6 Others .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) notice in accordance with law and to pass appropriate reasoned and speaking orders after receiving the reply. May 7, 2026 Nadeem WRIC No. 17858 of 2026 2 (Sudhanshu Chauhan,J.) (Neeraj Tiwari,J.) Digitally signed by :- NADEEM AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad