BHIM SINGHversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND 2 OTHERS

          HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                               WRIT - C No. - 16745 of 2026

Bhim Singh
                                                                                   .....Petitioner(s)
                                               Versus

State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 Others
                                                                                .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)                   : Bodhi Vallari, Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
Counsel for Respondent(s)                   : C.S.C., Kaushalendra Nath Singh

Court No. - 21
              HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J.
              HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J.

1. Heard Sri Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri
Ambrish Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-
respondents and Sri Kaushalendra Nath Singh, learned counsel for the
respondent-NOIDA.

2. The instant writ petition has been preferred for a mandamus directing
the respondents to allot the petitioner's share of 50% in the land in
question to the extent of 285.25 square meters and an amount of Rs.
62,75,500/- being 5% of 50% of the petitioner's share (This is granted by
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the petition of petitioner's brother Pratap
Singh's petition, the half of 10% developed abadi land as per Gajraj case).

3. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance
upon paragraph 5 of the order dated 24.3.2026 passed by Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Contempt Petition (C) No. 965/2023 in Civil Appeal
No. 4754/2015 filed by petitioner's brother Pratap Singh. For ready
reference, the same is reproduced herein.

     "Mr. Purvish Malkan, learned senior counsel, also submits that the petitioner himself as

     well as his brother. However, as Mr. Ravindra Kumar, learned senior counsel, opposed the

     said submission on the basis of the writ petition and other documents, we leave the issue

     relating to the entitlement of the petitioner's brother open. The petitioner's brother will be

     entitled to avail such remedies as may be permissible in law for making a similar claim as

     that of the petitioner. Upon an appropriate remedy adopted by the petitioner's brother, the

     concerned Court may dispose of this petition expeditiously."
                                                                                             WRIC No. 16745 of 2026
                                                                    2


                                    4. In this backdrop, he submits that as in the aforesaid proceeding,
                                    petitioner's counsel has made a statement that the petitioner is not only
                                    contesting the case for himself but also on behalf of his brother, who is
                                    petitioner in the instant proceeding. He submits that Hon'ble Supreme
                                    Court has left the issue relating to the entitlement of the petitioner
                                    (brother) open and avail such remedies as may be permissible in law for
                                    making a similar claim as that of his brother. Under the facts and
                                    circumstances, the petitioner is also entitled to receive benefit in the light
                                    of Full Bench judgment of this Court in Gajraj Singh v. State of U.P. and
                                    others 2011(11) ADJ 1.

                                    5. Per contra, learned counsel for the contesting-respondent submits that
                                    admittedly the petitioner was not a party in the Full Bench in Gajraj
                                    Singh (supra). The identical claim has been considered by the coordinate
                                    Bench in Damber Singh and another v. State of U.P. and another (Writ-
                                    C No. 29560 of 2025), which was dismissed vide order dated 15.10.2025.
                                    Subsequently, relying upon Damber Singh (supra), this Court has also
                                    rejected the identical claim in Inder Bir Singh Uppal and another v.
                                    State of U.P. and 2 others (Writ-C No. 40340 of 2025, dt. 18.11.2025).
                                    He submits that under the facts and circumstances no case is made out
                                    and the instant writ petition is also liable to be dismissed in the light of
                                    Damber Singh (supra).

                                    6. Considering the facts and circumstances and the relief as has been prayed
                                    for, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the writ petition pending
                                    for consideration and with the consent of the parties, the writ petition is
                                    disposed of finally with the direction to the competent authority to decide
                                    the claim of the petitioner strictly in accordance with law, as expeditiously
                                    as possible and preferably within three months from the date of production
                                    of a copy of this order before him but certainly after affording opportunity to
                                    all stakeholders in the matter. Needless to say, we have not adverted on
                                    merit of the case.



                                                       (Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.)
                                    May 7, 2026
                                    A.K.Srivastava




Digitally signed by :-
ARUN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad