/447/2025 of AJAY Vs STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. DEPTT. OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT LKO. AND 5 OTHERS on 27 November 2025

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 447 of 2025 Court No. - 1 HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J. HON'BLE RAJEEV BHARTI, J. (C.M. Application No.1 of 2025) This is an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Heard. No objections have been filed to the delay condonation application. We have gone through the affidavit in support of the application seeking condonation of delay. Cause shown is sufficient. Accordingly, the application is allowed. Delay is condoned. (Order on memo of appeal) Heard learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Vinod Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the opposite parties. Merits of the case apart, what we find is that the appellant herein was the person in whose favour the order dated 08.07.2025 which was impugned in the writ petition by respondent no.4 was passed. Without notice to him and without hearing him, the writ petition was allowed on the first date itself. The fact that the judgment impugned passed by the writ court has been implemented is inconsequential as apparently the person in whose favour the order had been passed was not even put to notice and the writ court allowed the writ petition on the first date. Apart from the aforesaid, Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Umesh Chandra Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Vinod Kumar Singh Ajay .....Appellant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Urban Development Lko. And 5 Others .....Respondent(s)

the assertion of the appellant herein is that the consent was ascertained and eight members of the Gram Panchayat gave affidavit in favour of the appellant who was opposite party no.4 in the writ petition. But all these facts could not be placed before the writ court because it did not give an opportunity to the appellant to do so. It is also informed the judgment reported in 1992 (1) UPLBEC 577 'Usha Singh vs. District Magistrate & Ors.' has subsequently been considered in subsequent decision rendered in the case of 'Shyamyu vs. State of U.P. & ors.' reported in (2010) SCC Online All 1250 and the law has evolved and has been clarified. The aforesaid reason is sufficient for us to interfere in the matter, quash the impugned judgment. We order accordingly. Writ-C No.8914 of 2025 [Neetu & ors. vs. State of U.P. & Ors.] shall stand restored to its original number and shall be listed before the writ court on 10.12.2025 as a fresh case. We request learned Single Judge to kindly take up the petition on the said date as far as possible and consider its maintainability as also interim relief as prayed but after giving opportunity to the appellant who is opposite party no.4. Consequences will follow accordingly as per law. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms. November 27, 2025 Shanu/- SPLAD No. 447 of 2025 2 (Rajeev Bharti,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHANU SUMAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench