Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
AJIT KUMAR, INDRAJEET SHUKLA
Kamrunnisha – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Indrajeet Shukla, J .
Order on Civil Misc. Impleadment Application No.3/2024
1. None appears to press the application for impleadment.
2. Impleadment application is rejected.
Order on Civil Misc. Substitution Application No.8/2026
1. Application for substitution is allowed.
2. Let necessary correction /amendment be carried out.
Order on Writ Petition
1. Heard Mr. Rakesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Pradeep Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
2. Present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been instituted by petitioner Kamrunnisha, being the wife/legal heir of late Mati Ullah (original allottee of Quarter no.3, Bunkar Colony, Nati Imli (Labour Colony Chauraha), District Varanasi with the following main prayers:
“(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents No.4 to give possession to petitioner over the locked part of Quarter No.3, Bunkar Colony, Nati Imli, (Labour Colony Chauraha), District-Varanasi, expeditiously.
(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.4 to take appropriate decision upon petitioner’s application date
The court affirmed the validity of Paragraph XXVI of SO No. 03/2015, emphasizing the importance of preventing unauthorized construction and maintaining harmonious relations in government quarters.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the authority of the government to correct allotment mistakes and the entitlement of individuals to government quarters.
The cancellation of an allotment order without notice constitutes a violation of the principles of natural justice, rendering the order null and legally unsustainable.
Petitioners cannot challenge allotment amounts after acquiescing to the allotment orders and making partial payments, as they were unauthorized occupants without valid claims.
The judgment establishes the importance of proving actual land allotment and possession in cases of rehabilitation schemes and the validity of administrative orders changing land use.
The court held that disputed questions of fact can be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction if they do not require elaborate evidence, emphasizing fairness in administrative actions.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
