A.F.R. Divine Heart Hospital And Research Centre Pvt.Ltd. Thru.Managing Director Dr.Ashok Kumar Srivastava v. State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy

16. Assailing the inspection report dated 03.07.2021, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Additional Officer-Ist, Barabanki has wrongly assessed the valuation of the khasra Nos. 459, 482, 483 & 484 in defiance of the Government Order dated 01.08.2017 in respect of the valuation of the land situated at Barabanki-Faizabad (Ayodhya) Road. It is further asserted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that at the time of the execution of the sale deed i.e. on 19.11.2020, all portion of the khasra Nos. 459, 482, 483 & 484 purchased by the petitioner having total area of

1.4042 hectares were the agricultural lands and the land-use was converted from the 'agricultural' to the 'non-agricultural' only on 03.03.2021 that goes to show that the inspection report dated 03.07.2021 is absolutely an incorrect 12 WRIC No. 6450 of 2022 report but the opposite party nos. 4 & 5 have failed to notice any fault in the said report and passed the impugned orders dated 16.08.2021 & 19.04.2022.

17. On the other side, learned counsels appearing on behalf of State- respondents have vehemently opposed the instant writ petition. Their submission is that petitioner on the receipt of the aforesaid notice dated

07.08.2021, voluntarily appeared on 16.08.2021 before learned Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), Barabanki, perused the inspection report dated 03.07.2021 and other documents on record, and thereafter voluntarily submitted the application dated 16.08.2021 in response to the aforesaid Notice dated 07.08.2021 whereby an additional Stamp-Duty of Rs. 6,17,150/- (Rs. Six Lacs Seventeen Thousand One Hundred and Fifty only) and the Registration Fee of Rs. 1,23,430/- (Rs. One Lac, Twenty-Three Thousand Four Hundred and Thirty only) was demanded. In the said application the petitioner unequivocally admitted the existence of deficiency in stamp duty, citing 'lack of knowledge' as the cause and in clear terms expressed his willingness to deposit the same and requested waiver of penalty; further, the petitioner specifically stated that he did not wish to contest the said stamp duty case and prayed for the disposal of the same.

18. It is contented on behalf of the State-respondents that the basis of the demand under Notice dated 07.08.2021 regarding the deficiency in stamp- duty and the registration fee is the inspection Report dated 03.07.2021 submitted by the Opposite party no.6, whereby the valuation of transferred property was evaluated as Rs. 3,24,43,000/- (Rs., Three Crore Twenty Four Lacs, and Forty-Three Thousand only) treating non- agricultural/Industrial land. The petitioner, instead of disputing the said report dated 03.07.2021; voluntarily admitted the noticed deficiency and 13 WRIC No. 6450 of 2022 expressed its willingness to deposit the same. It was in view of an explicit reluctance of the petitioner to contest the case and the voluntary admission of the petitioner to pay the deficient stamp-duty and the interest, the learned Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), Barabanki passed the order dated 16.08.2021.

19. It has been further submitted by the learned counsel for the State- respondents that during the proceedings before the Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), Barabanki, the petitioner had the opportunity to defend his case and to present objection / evidence. However, instead of defending the case, the petitioner voluntarily admitted the deficiency and get the waiver of imposed penalty amounting to four (4) times of the deficient amount; having taken the benefit of his own admission, the petitioner is estopped to challenge the proceedings.

20. Defending the order dated 19.04.2022 passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner, Stamp (opposite party No. 4); the learned counsels for the State-respondents have submitted that the same is a well-reasoned order whereby the Deputy Commissioner Stamp, Ayodhya being the Appellate Authority has rightly observed that the factual controversy and the legal issues raised by the petitioner at the appellate stage were never raised before the Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), Barabanki, rather the petitioner voluntarily admitted the imposed deficiencies and wished not to contest the case on the subject matter and as such, the Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), Barabanki committed no illegality in passing the order dated 16.08.2021 on the basis of the admission of the petitioner.

21. Lastly, the learned counsel appearing for the State-respondents submitted 14 WRIC No. 6450 of 2022 that as per the inspection report, the subject matter of instrument was found to be completely non-agricultural plot of land, situated on the side of Gata No. 459 Lucknow-Faizabad Road. Further, within a short span of time after the registration of the sale-deed dated 19.11.2020 in favour of the petitioner the land-use of the same was converted from agricultural to non-agricultural under section 80 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. Thus, the petitioner cannot take advantage of the entries in the revenue records to evade stamp- duty. In support of his case, the learned Standing Counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment and order passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of P.P. Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Agra Versus Chief Revenue Controlling Authority, Allahabad and others reported in 2014 (124) R.D. 316 wherein it was held that, "14. For the purpose of determining market value, it is not bare entry in revenue record, which is conclusive but entire state of affairs, as were available on the date of execution of sale deed, have to be looked into. …

15. It is true that size of land is a relevant factor for determining its value but in the present case, nothing otherwise has been shown by petitioner, either before authorities below or before this Court to show that true market value of property in question could have been lower than what was stated in the sale deed dated

29.8.2007, which is not a much subsequent document but was executed within a few days after the sale deed in question."

22. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties at length and have meticulously perused the relevant materials available on record, pleadings and impugned orders.

23. From the arguments as advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, 15 WRIC No. 6450 of 2022 the key issue that emerges for consideration, being decisive for the adjudication of the core controversy involved in the present writ petition, is as to whether the learned Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), Barabanki, was required to delve into the merits of the case, even without there being any contest either on the facts or law.

24. From the pleadings available on record it is evident that the facts regarding submission of the application by the petitioner before the Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), Barabanki on

16.08.2021 is undisputed, whereby the petitioner voluntarily admitted the deficiencies, attributing it to 'lack of legal knowledge' and expressed its willingness to deposit the amount demanded towards the deficiencies in stamp-duty and registration fee along with interest and requested waiver of penalty. Further, the petitioner by means of the said application very categorically expressed that it did not wish to engage in litigation with regard to the concerned stamp-duty matter. Although, the learned counsel for the Petitioner has argued that the consent was orally withdrawn by the petitioner on the same day, but nothing has been placed on record to substantiate the said argument.

25. The petitioner is not disputing the submission of the said application before the Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), Barabanki on 16.08.2021, whereby the petitioner on its own unequivocally admitted the noticed deficiencies to avoid penalty and had consciously chosen not to contest the proceedings before the competent authority and voluntarily wished to deposit the deficient stamp duty based on the inspection report dated 03.07.2021. There is also nothing on record to indicate any coercion, duress or undue influence in the submission of the said application. 16 WRIC No. 6450 of 2022

26. The petitioner even in the Appeal having Case No. 1469 of 2021, preferred under Section 56(1-A) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 against the order dated 16.08.2021, did not raise the plea regarding the alleged withdrawal of his aforesaid application although the same was the basis of the passing of the order under challenge in the said appeal, what to say of challenge there is not even a whisper to that effect. From the perusal of the memo of the aforesaid appeal and also the copy of written arguments submitted before the learned Appellate Court of Deputy Commissioner, Stamp, Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya, as contained in annexures no.9 & 10 to this writ petition, it is apparent that the petitioner did not raise the said plea rather pressed the appeal on various other grounds dealing with the merits of the case.

27. It is trite in law that admissions, if clear, are by far the best proof of facts admitted. Admissions in pleading or judicial admission, if admissible, made by the parties or their agents at or before the hearing of a case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions. The former class of admissions is fully binding on the party that makes them and constitutes a waiver of proof. However, an admission, once made, before the Court of law can very well be clarified or explained in the prescribed manner and the basis of admission can be attacked in a substantive proceeding. The Court can very well pass an order on the basis of an undisputed admission of a party in accordance with law It is well settled that where admissions of facts and law have been made either in the pleading or otherwise, whether orally or in writing, the Court at any stage of the proceeding either on the application of a party or on its own motion without waiting for the determination of other questions, may make such order or give such judgment as it may think fit, having regard to such admission. In such a case, the party making the said 17 WRIC No. 6450 of 2022 admission cannot be allowed to challenge the said order on the basis that the party, after the order has been passed, wished to withdraw the said admission. Allowing such challenges will create a cascading effect of non- ending litigation for a single cause of action. The Hon'ble Supreme Court by placing reliance on its stare decisis, observed in the case of Ram Niranjan Kajaria versus Sheo Prakash Kajaria and others; reported in 2015 (10) SCC 203 that a party cannot be permitted to wholly withdraw the admission in the pleadings.

28. Further, with regard to withdrawal or resiling from an admission made by a party during the course of proceedings in a particular case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Gautam Sarup versus Leela Jetly and others; reported in (2008) 7 SCC 85, after taking into consideration the judgment passed by the Court in the case of Panchdeo Narain Srivastava versus Km. Jyoti Sahay and Another; reported in (1984) Supp. SCC 594, and Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. versus Ladha Ram & Co. reported in (1976) 4 SCC 320 and several other decisions dealing with the amendment on withdrawal of admissions in the pleadings; held that, "28. What, therefore, emerges from the discussions made hereinbefore is that a categorical admission cannot be resiled from but, in a given case, it may be explained or clarified. Offering explanation in regard to an admission or explaining away the same, however, would depend upon the nature and character thereof. It may be that a defendant is entitled to take an alternative plea. Such alternative pleas, however, cannot be mutually destructive of each other."

29. From the material available on record, this Court finds that in response to the notice dated 07.08.2021, the petitioner appeared before the Additional 18 WRIC No. 6450 of 2022 District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), Barabanki in the proceeding under Section 47-A of the India Stamp Act, 1899, and voluntarily submitted an application on the same day i.e. 16.08.2021, wherein it admitted the noticed liabilities and expressed willingness to deposit the same and requested for waiver of the penalty. It is also explicit from the perusal of the application dated 16.08.2021 that the petitioner categorically expressed that it did not wish to engage in litigation concerning the said stamp-duty matter and requested for disposal of the matter accordingly. Therefore, the learned Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), Barabanki has very rightly decided the matter promptly in the light of the written admission and the request made by the petitioner in the said application. Insofar as the order dated 19.04.2022 passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner Stamp, Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya is concerned, the same being a reasoned order passed after taking into consideration the fact that the learned Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), Barabanki being the adjudicatory authority of first instance, passed the order dated 16.08.2021 on the basis of the petitioner's own admissions and the prayer made therein; cannot be faulted also in the light of the settled preposition of law that 'as a rule relief not founded on the pleadings should not be granted'. A decision of a case cannot be based on grounds outside the pleadings of the parties. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Divyagnakumari Harisinh Parmar and others versus Union of India and others; reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2064, has been pleased to hold that no relief can be granted on a case not founded in the pleadings. The Court cannot entertain an entirely new case at the appellate stage at the behest of either party and is strictly confined to adjudicate the issues arising from the suit as framed by the pleadings of the parties. Thus, the order dated 19.04.2022 passed by the 19 WRIC No. 6450 of 2022 learned Appellate Authority does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality warranting interference by this Court.

30. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the order dated 16.08.2021 passed by the learned Additional District Magistrate, (Finance & Revenue), Barabanki (Opposite party no. 5) and the order dated 19.04.2022 passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner, Stamp, Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya (opposite party No. 4) do not necessitate any interfere by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

31. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. November 3, 2025 Virendra (Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.) VIRENDRA KUMAR GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

16. Assailing the inspection report dated 03.07.2021, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Additional Officer-Ist, Barabanki has wrongly assessed the valuation of the khasra Nos. 459, 482, 483 & 484 in defiance of the Government Order dated 01.08.2017 in respect of the valuation of the land situated at Barabanki-Faizabad (Ayodhya) Road. It is further asserted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that at the time of the execution of the sale deed i.e. on 19.11.2020, all portion of the khasra Nos. 459, 482, 483 & 484 purchased by the petitioner having total area of

1.4042 hectares were the agricultural lands and the land-use was converted from the 'agricultural' to the 'non-agricultural' only on 03.03.2021 that goes to show that the inspection report dated 03.07.2021 is absolutely an incorrect 12 WRIC No. 6450 of 2022 report but the opposite party nos. 4 & 5 have failed to notice any fault in the said report and passed the impugned orders dated 16.08.2021 & 19.04.2022.

17. On the other side, learned counsels appearing on behalf of State- respondents have vehemently opposed the instant writ petition. Their submission is that petitioner on the receipt of the aforesaid notice dated

07.08.2021, voluntarily appeared on 16.08.2021 before learned Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), Barabanki, perused the inspection report dated 03.07.2021 and other documents on record, and thereafter voluntarily submitted the application dated 16.08.2021 in response to the aforesaid Notice dated 07.08.2021 whereby an additional Stamp-Duty of Rs. 6,17,150/- (Rs. Six Lacs Seventeen Thousand One Hundred and Fifty only) and the Registration Fee of Rs. 1,23,430/- (Rs. One Lac, Twenty-Three Thousand Four Hundred and Thirty only) was demanded. In the said application the petitioner unequivocally admitted the existence of deficiency in stamp duty, citing 'lack of knowledge' as the cause and in clear terms expressed his willingness to deposit the same and requested waiver of penalty; further, the petitioner specifically stated that he did not wish to contest the said stamp duty case and prayed for the disposal of the same.

18. It is contented on behalf of the State-respondents that the basis of the demand under Notice dated 07.08.2021 regarding the deficiency in stamp- duty and the registration fee is the inspection Report dated 03.07.2021 submitted by the Opposite party no.6, whereby the valuation of transferred property was evaluated as Rs. 3,24,43,000/- (Rs., Three Crore Twenty Four Lacs, and Forty-Three Thousand only) treating non- agricultural/Industrial land. The petitioner, instead of disputing the said report dated 03.07.2021; voluntarily admitted the noticed deficiency and 13 WRIC No. 6450 of 2022 expressed its willingness to deposit the same. It was in view of an explicit reluctance of the petitioner to contest the case and the voluntary admission of the petitioner to pay the deficient stamp-duty and the interest, the learned Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), Barabanki passed the order dated 16.08.2021.

19. It has been further submitted by the learned counsel for the State- respondents that during the proceedings before the Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), Barabanki, the petitioner had the opportunity to defend his case and to present objection / evidence. However, instead of defending the case, the petitioner voluntarily admitted the deficiency and get the waiver of imposed penalty amounting to four (4) times of the deficient amount; having taken the benefit of his own admission, the petitioner is estopped to challenge the proceedings.

20. Defending the order dated 19.04.2022 passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner, Stamp (opposite party No. 4); the learned counsels for the State-respondents have submitted that the same is a well-reasoned order whereby the Deputy Commissioner Stamp, Ayodhya being the Appellate Authority has rightly observed that the factual controversy and the legal issues raised by the petitioner at the appellate stage were never raised before the Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), Barabanki, rather the petitioner voluntarily admitted the imposed deficiencies and wished not to contest the case on the subject matter and as such, the Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), Barabanki committed no illegality in passing the order dated 16.08.2021 on the basis of the admission of the petitioner.

21. Lastly, the learned counsel appearing for the State-respondents submitted 14 WRIC No. 6450 of 2022 that as per the inspection report, the subject matter of instrument was found to be completely non-agricultural plot of land, situated on the side of Gata No. 459 Lucknow-Faizabad Road. Further, within a short span of time after the registration of the sale-deed dated 19.11.2020 in favour of the petitioner the land-use of the same was converted from agricultural to non-agricultural under section 80 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. Thus, the petitioner cannot take advantage of the entries in the revenue records to evade stamp- duty. In support of his case, the learned Standing Counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment and order passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of P.P. Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Agra Versus Chief Revenue Controlling Authority, Allahabad and others reported in 2014 (124) R.D. 316 wherein it was held that, "14. For the purpose of determining market value, it is not bare entry in revenue record, which is conclusive but entire state of affairs, as were available on the date of execution of sale deed, have to be looked into. …

15. It is true that size of land is a relevant factor for determining its value but in the present case, nothing otherwise has been shown by petitioner, either before authorities below or before this Court to show that true market value of property in question could have been lower than what was stated in the sale deed dated

29.8.2007, which is not a much subsequent document but was executed within a few days after the sale deed in question."

22. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties at length and have meticulously perused the relevant materials available on record, pleadings and impugned orders.

23. From the arguments as advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, 15 WRIC No. 6450 of 2022 the key issue that emerges for consideration, being decisive for the adjudication of the core controversy involved in the present writ petition, is as to whether the learned Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), Barabanki, was required to delve into the merits of the case, even without there being any contest either on the facts or law.

24. From the pleadings available on record it is evident that the facts regarding submission of the application by the petitioner before the Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), Barabanki on

16.08.2021 is undisputed, whereby the petitioner voluntarily admitted the deficiencies, attributing it to 'lack of legal knowledge' and expressed its willingness to deposit the amount demanded towards the deficiencies in stamp-duty and registration fee along with interest and requested waiver of penalty. Further, the petitioner by means of the said application very categorically expressed that it did not wish to engage in litigation with regard to the concerned stamp-duty matter. Although, the learned counsel for the Petitioner has argued that the consent was orally withdrawn by the petitioner on the same day, but nothing has been placed on record to substantiate the said argument.

25. The petitioner is not disputing the submission of the said application before the Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), Barabanki on 16.08.2021, whereby the petitioner on its own unequivocally admitted the noticed deficiencies to avoid penalty and had consciously chosen not to contest the proceedings before the competent authority and voluntarily wished to deposit the deficient stamp duty based on the inspection report dated 03.07.2021. There is also nothing on record to indicate any coercion, duress or undue influence in the submission of the said application. 16 WRIC No. 6450 of 2022

26. The petitioner even in the Appeal having Case No. 1469 of 2021, preferred under Section 56(1-A) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 against the order dated 16.08.2021, did not raise the plea regarding the alleged withdrawal of his aforesaid application although the same was the basis of the passing of the order under challenge in the said appeal, what to say of challenge there is not even a whisper to that effect. From the perusal of the memo of the aforesaid appeal and also the copy of written arguments submitted before the learned Appellate Court of Deputy Commissioner, Stamp, Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya, as contained in annexures no.9 & 10 to this writ petition, it is apparent that the petitioner did not raise the said plea rather pressed the appeal on various other grounds dealing with the merits of the case.

27. It is trite in law that admissions, if clear, are by far the best proof of facts admitted. Admissions in pleading or judicial admission, if admissible, made by the parties or their agents at or before the hearing of a case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions. The former class of admissions is fully binding on the party that makes them and constitutes a waiver of proof. However, an admission, once made, before the Court of law can very well be clarified or explained in the prescribed manner and the basis of admission can be attacked in a substantive proceeding. The Court can very well pass an order on the basis of an undisputed admission of a party in accordance with law It is well settled that where admissions of facts and law have been made either in the pleading or otherwise, whether orally or in writing, the Court at any stage of the proceeding either on the application of a party or on its own motion without waiting for the determination of other questions, may make such order or give such judgment as it may think fit, having regard to such admission. In such a case, the party making the said 17 WRIC No. 6450 of 2022 admission cannot be allowed to challenge the said order on the basis that the party, after the order has been passed, wished to withdraw the said admission. Allowing such challenges will create a cascading effect of non- ending litigation for a single cause of action. The Hon'ble Supreme Court by placing reliance on its stare decisis, observed in the case of Ram Niranjan Kajaria versus Sheo Prakash Kajaria and others; reported in 2015 (10) SCC 203 that a party cannot be permitted to wholly withdraw the admission in the pleadings.

28. Further, with regard to withdrawal or resiling from an admission made by a party during the course of proceedings in a particular case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Gautam Sarup versus Leela Jetly and others; reported in (2008) 7 SCC 85, after taking into consideration the judgment passed by the Court in the case of Panchdeo Narain Srivastava versus Km. Jyoti Sahay and Another; reported in (1984) Supp. SCC 594, and Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. versus Ladha Ram & Co. reported in (1976) 4 SCC 320 and several other decisions dealing with the amendment on withdrawal of admissions in the pleadings; held that, "28. What, therefore, emerges from the discussions made hereinbefore is that a categorical admission cannot be resiled from but, in a given case, it may be explained or clarified. Offering explanation in regard to an admission or explaining away the same, however, would depend upon the nature and character thereof. It may be that a defendant is entitled to take an alternative plea. Such alternative pleas, however, cannot be mutually destructive of each other."

29. From the material available on record, this Court finds that in response to the notice dated 07.08.2021, the petitioner appeared before the Additional 18 WRIC No. 6450 of 2022 District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), Barabanki in the proceeding under Section 47-A of the India Stamp Act, 1899, and voluntarily submitted an application on the same day i.e. 16.08.2021, wherein it admitted the noticed liabilities and expressed willingness to deposit the same and requested for waiver of the penalty. It is also explicit from the perusal of the application dated 16.08.2021 that the petitioner categorically expressed that it did not wish to engage in litigation concerning the said stamp-duty matter and requested for disposal of the matter accordingly. Therefore, the learned Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), Barabanki has very rightly decided the matter promptly in the light of the written admission and the request made by the petitioner in the said application. Insofar as the order dated 19.04.2022 passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner Stamp, Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya is concerned, the same being a reasoned order passed after taking into consideration the fact that the learned Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), Barabanki being the adjudicatory authority of first instance, passed the order dated 16.08.2021 on the basis of the petitioner's own admissions and the prayer made therein; cannot be faulted also in the light of the settled preposition of law that 'as a rule relief not founded on the pleadings should not be granted'. A decision of a case cannot be based on grounds outside the pleadings of the parties. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Divyagnakumari Harisinh Parmar and others versus Union of India and others; reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2064, has been pleased to hold that no relief can be granted on a case not founded in the pleadings. The Court cannot entertain an entirely new case at the appellate stage at the behest of either party and is strictly confined to adjudicate the issues arising from the suit as framed by the pleadings of the parties. Thus, the order dated 19.04.2022 passed by the 19 WRIC No. 6450 of 2022 learned Appellate Authority does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality warranting interference by this Court.

30. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the order dated 16.08.2021 passed by the learned Additional District Magistrate, (Finance & Revenue), Barabanki (Opposite party no. 5) and the order dated 19.04.2022 passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner, Stamp, Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya (opposite party No. 4) do not necessitate any interfere by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

31. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. November 3, 2025 Virendra (Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.) VIRENDRA KUMAR GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench