Ram Gopal Yadav vs State Of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. ... on 15 November, 2025

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Allahabad High Court

Ram Gopal Yadav vs State Of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. ... on 15 November, 2025

Bench: Sangeeta Chandra





HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:73655-DB
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
LUCKNOW 
 
WRIT - C No. - 11083 of 2025   
 
   Ram Gopal Yadav    
 
  .....Petitioner(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   State Of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue Deptt. Govt. Lko. And 6 Others    
 
  .....Respondent(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Petitioner(s)   
 
:   
 
Rajesh Kumar Sharma   
 
  
 
Counsel for Respondent(s)   
 
:   
 
C.S.C., Dilip Kumar Pandey, Ratnesh Chandra   
 
     
 
 Court No. - 2
 
   
 
 HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J.

HON'BLE AMITABH KUMAR RAI, J.

1. Vakalatnama filed today by Shri Shreyash Agarwal, learned counsel on behalf of respondent No.4 is taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel, who appears on behalf of State-respondent Nos.1 to 3, Shri Dilip Kumar Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.7- Gaon Sabha, Dona, Shri Shreyash Agarwal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.4- Lucknow Development Authority.

3. This petition has been filed with the following prayers :-

"I. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite party No.2 to 4 to recover the compensation amount from private respondents of land Khasra No.279 area 0.441 hectare and Khasra No.272 area 0.0630 hectare, total area 0.5040 hectare situated at Village- Dona, Pargana- Kakori, Tehsil- Sarojni Nagar, District- Lucknow and pay the compensation amount to the petitioner on the basis of registered sale agreement dated 14.03.2018, in the interest of justice.

II. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite party No.4 not develop/allot the land in question to any person till the disposal of the objection filed by the petitioner, in the interest of justice.

III. Issue any writ order or direction which this Hon'ble court may deem just fit and proper, in the interest of justice.

IV. Allow the writ petition with cost."

4. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 has raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the petition on the ground that the petitioner claims compensation for land acquired by the Lucknow Development Authority only on the basis of an agreement to sell. He has referred to a judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ltd. through Director vs. State of Haryana & Anr., Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.13917 of 2009, decided on 11.10.2011 and paragraphs 11 and 12 thereof as well as paragraphs 16 and 18, to say that an agreement to sell cannot confer any right, title or interest over the property in question. It is not a registered sale deed and it falls short of the requirements under Sections 54 and 55 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

5. The writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable.

(Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) (Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.) November 15, 2025 Shubhankar

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Allahabad High Court