In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court recently addressed a case involving the unlawful dispossession of a shop owner by the Lucknow Development Authority (LDA). The court emphasized the importance of due process and constitutional rights under Article 300A, which safeguards an individual's right to property.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Mohammad Zaimul Islam, owned Shop No. 112(a) in Sahara Bazar, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow. The property was initially leased to M/S Sahara India Commercial Corporation Limited for 30 years, with a clause allowing transfer to third parties upon payment of a nominal fee. The petitioner acquired the shop through a registered sale deed in 2000 and had been in possession since then.
Read also:- Kerala HC Clarifies: Property Possession Alone Doesn't Make One Liable for Senior Citizen's Maintenance
However, in 2025, the LDA terminated the lease of the main lessee (Sahara India) and issued a public notice declaring the property as its own. The petitioner was dispossessed without any prior notice or legal process, leading him to file a writ petition challenging the LDA's actions.
The petitioner's counsel argued that the LDA's actions violated Article 300A of the Constitution, which mandates that no person shall be deprived of property except by authority of law. The petitioner had not been given any opportunity to present his case, nor was the sale deed in his favor ever challenged or canceled.
Read also:- SC Acquits Woman in Murder Case Citing Doubts Over Evidence and Eyewitness Testimony
The LDA, on the other hand, contended that the writ petition was not maintainable since the main lessee had already withdrawn a similar petition and opted for a civil suit. They also argued that the matter should be heard by a Division Bench.
The court rejected these objections, stating that the Stamp Reporter had assigned the case to a Single Judge, and no evidence was provided to dispute this. The court also dismissed the claim that the petitioner should file a civil suit, noting that the violation of constitutional rights warranted relief under Article 226.
Read also:- SC Clarifies Limitation Period in Reassessment Orders Involving DRP for Non-Resident Assessees
Justice Pankaj Bhatia held that the LDA's actions were arbitrary and unlawful. The court stated:
"In a society governed by the rule of law, dispossessing a person without due process is unacceptable. The petitioner's rights under Article 300A were blatantly violated."
The court quashed the LDA's actions and directed the immediate restoration of the shop to the petitioner. Additionally, the LDA was ordered to pay Rs. 50,000 as costs for unlawfully trespassing into the property. The judgment clarified that the LDA could still take legal action against the petitioner if warranted, but only through proper channels.
Case Title: Mohammad Zaimul Islam vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Housing And Urban Planning Lko. And Another
Case Number: WRIT - C No. - 6920 of 2025
