Siddiqui Jamaluddin Thru. His Legal Heir Mohd Faizuddin v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Housing And Urban Planning Lko. And Anothe

Firoj Siddiqi WRIT - C No. - 7970 of 2025 Versus State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Housing And Urban Planning Lko. And Another .....Petitioner(s) .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Shivendra S Singh Rathore, Bhavesh Chandel, Piyush Raj Verma, Sachin Upadhyay Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Ratnesh Chandra WITH WRIT - C No. - 7971 of 2025 Smt.Archana Singh Bhadoria Versus State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Housing Lko. U.P. And Another .....Petitioner(s) .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Shivendra S Singh Rathore, Bhavesh Chandel, Piyush Raj Verma, Sachin Upadhyay Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Ratnesh Chandra WITH Mohd. Shafiq WRIT - C No. - 7972 of 2025 Versus .....Petitioner(s) 3 SPLA No. 282 of 2025 State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Housing And Urban Planning Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner(s) .....Respondent(s) : Shivendra S Singh Rathore, Bhavesh Chandel, Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Ratnesh Chandra Piyush Raj Verma, Sachin Upadhyay WITH Ziaul Hasan Usmani WRIT - C No. - 7973 of 2025 Versus State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Housing And Urban Planning Lko. And Another .....Petitioner(s) .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Shivendra S Singh Rathore, Bhavesh Chandel, Mohammad Sufiyan, Piyush Raj Verma, Sachin Upadhyay Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Ratnesh Chandra WITH WRIT - C No. - 7974 of 2025 M/S Satguru Kirana Stores Thru. Partner Ramesh Chand Keswani .....Petitioner(s) Versus State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Housing And Urban Planning Lko And Another .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Shivendra S Singh Rathore, Bhavesh Chandel, Piyush Raj Verma, Sachin Upadhyay Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Ratnesh Chandra WITH Rakesh Kumar Pandey WRIT - C No. - 7975 of 2025 Versus .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Housing Urban Planning Lko. And Another Counsel for Petitioner(s) 4 SPLA No. 282 of 2025 .....Respondent(s) : Shivendra S Singh Rathore, Bhavesh Chandel, Piyush Raj Verma, Sachin Upadhyay Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Ratnesh Chandra WITH WRIT - C No. - 7976 of 2025 Smt. Rukshna Begum Alias Rukshana Atiqueahmed Shaikh Versus .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Housing Urban Planning Lko. And Another .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Shivendra S Singh Rathore, Bhavesh Chandel, Piyush Raj Verma, Sachin Upadhyay Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Ratnesh Chandra WITH Smt. Vandana Singh WRIT - C No. - 7978 of 2025 Versus .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Housing And Urban Planning Lko. And Another .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Shivendra S Singh Rathore, Bhavesh Chandel, Piyush Raj Verma, Sachin Upadhyay Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Ratnesh Chandra AND WRIT - C No. - 7986 of 2025 Smt. Khurshid Fatima Alias Khurshid Jamaluddin .....Petitioner(s) Versus State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Housing And Urban Planning Lko. And Another Counsel for Petitioner(s) 5 SPLA No. 282 of 2025 .....Respondent(s) : Shivendra S Singh Rathore, Bhavesh Chandel, Piyush Raj Verma, Sachin Upadhyay Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Ratnesh Chandra Court No. - 1 HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J. HON'BLE RAJEEV BHARTI, J. (Order in Special Appeal No.282 of 2025)

1. Heard.

2. This is an appeal filed by the Lucknow Development Authority challenging the judgment and order dated 30.07.2025 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ-C No.6920 of 2025 [Mohammad Zaimul Islam & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Ors.]. The copy of the writ petition wherein the said order was passed is on record. Its relief clause reads as under:- "I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 03.05.2025 passed by the Opposite Party No. 2 le., Lucknow Development Authority after summoning the same from Opposite Party No. 2 i.e., Lucknow Development Authority in the interest of justice. II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned eviction proceedings initiated vide impugned notice dated 18.06.2025 in pursuance of the impugned order dated 03.05.2025 passed by the Opposite Party No. 2 i.e., Lucknow Development Authority which is contained as Annexure No. 1 to the present writ petition in the interest of justice. III. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite party no. 2 i.e., Lucknow Development Authority to not interfere in the long, continuous and peaceful possession of the petitioner in the demised premise of the petitioner situated at the Sahara Bazaar, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, District - Lucknow and further may graciously be pleased Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite party no. 2 i.e., Lucknow Development Authority to not create any third party rights during the pendency of the present writ petition in the interest of justice and also to allow the petitioner to earn livelihood by continuing to carry out the business from the demised premises which is the only 6 SPLA No. 282 of 2025 source of his livelihood in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice. IV. Issue any other and further writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the case. V. Award the costs to the petitioner."

3. The order impugned i.e. 03.05.2025 and the impugned notice dated

18.06.2025 are on record. Vide order dated 03.05.2025, the L.D.A. has cancelled the lease entered into with M/s Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd. Respondent no.1-petitioner is as informed by Sri Ratnesh Chandra a sub-lessee of the aforesaid Corporation. The notice issued in pursuance to this order is also on record. Apparently, the aforesaid orders and the notice have not been passed in any appellate or revisional proceedings, therefore, as per order of Hon'ble the Chief Justice dated 18.09.1981 and the Rules of the Court, learned Single Judge did not have jurisdiction to hear such a petition. It was cognizable directly by a Division Bench. In fact, the aforesaid Corporation i.e. M/s Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd has subsequently filed a separate writ petition as is evident from the order passed on 01.07.2025 in Writ-C No.6210 of 2025 [M/s Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd vs. State of U.P. & Ors.] before the Division Bench, copy of which is annexed at page no.183. Likewise, some of the sub-lessees have also filed separate writ petitions which are being listed before the Division Bench. The order dated 01.07.2025 passed in the writ petition filed by M/s Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd bearing Writ-C No.6210 of 2025 is quoted hereinbelow:- "After arguing the matter at some length, Sri Amrendra Nath Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that he may be permitted to withdraw this petition, with liberty to file a civil suit. In view of the above, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty, as aforesaid, as far as it is permissible in law. "

4. In this case, no appellate or revisional proceedings was pending nor was any order passed therein which was under challenge in the writ 7 SPLA No. 282 of 2025 petition. Therefore, writ petition bearing Writ-C No.6920 of 2025 was not maintainable before the learned Single Judge. The order impugned herein being apparently without jurisdiction, we quash the same only on the said ground with liberty, however, to respondent no.1 to pursue such remedies against the orders impugned in the writ petition bearing Writ-C No.6210 of 2025 as may be prescribed/ permissible in law.

5. At this stage, it is informed that the lessor M/s Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd. has withdrawn its writ petition and filed a civil suit.

6. Accordingly, the special appeal is allowed. (Order in connected petitions)

7. In all other writ petitions which are pending, the question is regarding maintainability. The objection of Sri Ratnesh Chandra, learned counsel for the opposite parties therein is that the dispute pertains to cancellation of lease entered into between the Lucknow Development Authority and M/s Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd. The petitioners before this Court are sub-lessee. The nature of the dispute is such that it can be adjudicated only by a civil court and not in writ jurisdiction, however, learned counsel for petitioners says that lease itself contained a clause for sub-letting.

8. Be that as it may, delink the other writ petitions from Special Appeal No. 282 of 2025 and list on 11.11.2025 as fresh.

9. Let learned counsel for the petitioners in the connected petitions satisfy the Court as to the maintainability of these writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and as to why if they are maintainable, the Court should entertain the same. November 3, 2025 Shanu/- (Rajeev Bharti,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) SHANU SUMAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Firoj Siddiqi WRIT - C No. - 7970 of 2025 Versus State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Housing And Urban Planning Lko. And Another .....Petitioner(s) .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Shivendra S Singh Rathore, Bhavesh Chandel, Piyush Raj Verma, Sachin Upadhyay Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Ratnesh Chandra WITH WRIT - C No. - 7971 of 2025 Smt.Archana Singh Bhadoria Versus State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Housing Lko. U.P. And Another .....Petitioner(s) .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Shivendra S Singh Rathore, Bhavesh Chandel, Piyush Raj Verma, Sachin Upadhyay Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Ratnesh Chandra WITH Mohd. Shafiq WRIT - C No. - 7972 of 2025 Versus .....Petitioner(s) 3 SPLA No. 282 of 2025 State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Housing And Urban Planning Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner(s) .....Respondent(s) : Shivendra S Singh Rathore, Bhavesh Chandel, Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Ratnesh Chandra Piyush Raj Verma, Sachin Upadhyay WITH Ziaul Hasan Usmani WRIT - C No. - 7973 of 2025 Versus State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Housing And Urban Planning Lko. And Another .....Petitioner(s) .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Shivendra S Singh Rathore, Bhavesh Chandel, Mohammad Sufiyan, Piyush Raj Verma, Sachin Upadhyay Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Ratnesh Chandra WITH WRIT - C No. - 7974 of 2025 M/S Satguru Kirana Stores Thru. Partner Ramesh Chand Keswani .....Petitioner(s) Versus State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Housing And Urban Planning Lko And Another .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Shivendra S Singh Rathore, Bhavesh Chandel, Piyush Raj Verma, Sachin Upadhyay Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Ratnesh Chandra WITH Rakesh Kumar Pandey WRIT - C No. - 7975 of 2025 Versus .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Housing Urban Planning Lko. And Another Counsel for Petitioner(s) 4 SPLA No. 282 of 2025 .....Respondent(s) : Shivendra S Singh Rathore, Bhavesh Chandel, Piyush Raj Verma, Sachin Upadhyay Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Ratnesh Chandra WITH WRIT - C No. - 7976 of 2025 Smt. Rukshna Begum Alias Rukshana Atiqueahmed Shaikh Versus .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Housing Urban Planning Lko. And Another .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Shivendra S Singh Rathore, Bhavesh Chandel, Piyush Raj Verma, Sachin Upadhyay Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Ratnesh Chandra WITH Smt. Vandana Singh WRIT - C No. - 7978 of 2025 Versus .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Housing And Urban Planning Lko. And Another .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Shivendra S Singh Rathore, Bhavesh Chandel, Piyush Raj Verma, Sachin Upadhyay Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Ratnesh Chandra AND WRIT - C No. - 7986 of 2025 Smt. Khurshid Fatima Alias Khurshid Jamaluddin .....Petitioner(s) Versus State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Housing And Urban Planning Lko. And Another Counsel for Petitioner(s) 5 SPLA No. 282 of 2025 .....Respondent(s) : Shivendra S Singh Rathore, Bhavesh Chandel, Piyush Raj Verma, Sachin Upadhyay Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Ratnesh Chandra Court No. - 1 HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J. HON'BLE RAJEEV BHARTI, J. (Order in Special Appeal No.282 of 2025)

1. Heard.

2. This is an appeal filed by the Lucknow Development Authority challenging the judgment and order dated 30.07.2025 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ-C No.6920 of 2025 [Mohammad Zaimul Islam & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Ors.]. The copy of the writ petition wherein the said order was passed is on record. Its relief clause reads as under:- "I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 03.05.2025 passed by the Opposite Party No. 2 le., Lucknow Development Authority after summoning the same from Opposite Party No. 2 i.e., Lucknow Development Authority in the interest of justice. II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned eviction proceedings initiated vide impugned notice dated 18.06.2025 in pursuance of the impugned order dated 03.05.2025 passed by the Opposite Party No. 2 i.e., Lucknow Development Authority which is contained as Annexure No. 1 to the present writ petition in the interest of justice. III. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite party no. 2 i.e., Lucknow Development Authority to not interfere in the long, continuous and peaceful possession of the petitioner in the demised premise of the petitioner situated at the Sahara Bazaar, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, District - Lucknow and further may graciously be pleased Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite party no. 2 i.e., Lucknow Development Authority to not create any third party rights during the pendency of the present writ petition in the interest of justice and also to allow the petitioner to earn livelihood by continuing to carry out the business from the demised premises which is the only 6 SPLA No. 282 of 2025 source of his livelihood in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice. IV. Issue any other and further writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the case. V. Award the costs to the petitioner."

3. The order impugned i.e. 03.05.2025 and the impugned notice dated

18.06.2025 are on record. Vide order dated 03.05.2025, the L.D.A. has cancelled the lease entered into with M/s Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd. Respondent no.1-petitioner is as informed by Sri Ratnesh Chandra a sub-lessee of the aforesaid Corporation. The notice issued in pursuance to this order is also on record. Apparently, the aforesaid orders and the notice have not been passed in any appellate or revisional proceedings, therefore, as per order of Hon'ble the Chief Justice dated 18.09.1981 and the Rules of the Court, learned Single Judge did not have jurisdiction to hear such a petition. It was cognizable directly by a Division Bench. In fact, the aforesaid Corporation i.e. M/s Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd has subsequently filed a separate writ petition as is evident from the order passed on 01.07.2025 in Writ-C No.6210 of 2025 [M/s Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd vs. State of U.P. & Ors.] before the Division Bench, copy of which is annexed at page no.183. Likewise, some of the sub-lessees have also filed separate writ petitions which are being listed before the Division Bench. The order dated 01.07.2025 passed in the writ petition filed by M/s Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd bearing Writ-C No.6210 of 2025 is quoted hereinbelow:- "After arguing the matter at some length, Sri Amrendra Nath Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that he may be permitted to withdraw this petition, with liberty to file a civil suit. In view of the above, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty, as aforesaid, as far as it is permissible in law. "

4. In this case, no appellate or revisional proceedings was pending nor was any order passed therein which was under challenge in the writ 7 SPLA No. 282 of 2025 petition. Therefore, writ petition bearing Writ-C No.6920 of 2025 was not maintainable before the learned Single Judge. The order impugned herein being apparently without jurisdiction, we quash the same only on the said ground with liberty, however, to respondent no.1 to pursue such remedies against the orders impugned in the writ petition bearing Writ-C No.6210 of 2025 as may be prescribed/ permissible in law.

5. At this stage, it is informed that the lessor M/s Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd. has withdrawn its writ petition and filed a civil suit.

6. Accordingly, the special appeal is allowed. (Order in connected petitions)

7. In all other writ petitions which are pending, the question is regarding maintainability. The objection of Sri Ratnesh Chandra, learned counsel for the opposite parties therein is that the dispute pertains to cancellation of lease entered into between the Lucknow Development Authority and M/s Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd. The petitioners before this Court are sub-lessee. The nature of the dispute is such that it can be adjudicated only by a civil court and not in writ jurisdiction, however, learned counsel for petitioners says that lease itself contained a clause for sub-letting.

8. Be that as it may, delink the other writ petitions from Special Appeal No. 282 of 2025 and list on 11.11.2025 as fresh.

9. Let learned counsel for the petitioners in the connected petitions satisfy the Court as to the maintainability of these writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and as to why if they are maintainable, the Court should entertain the same. November 3, 2025 Shanu/- (Rajeev Bharti,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) SHANU SUMAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench