# Deepak Kumar Verma v. Union of India & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 3 ILRA 652
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-03-05
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 3824 of 2025
- **Bench:** Shekhar B. Saraf, Vipin Chandra Dixit
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/deepak-kumar-verma-v-union-of-india-ors-53230
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Civil Law - Constitution of India, 1950 -
Article 226 - Against rejection of retail
outlet dealership - Petitioner applied for
the same in pursuance of advertisement,
fulfilled
all
requirement,
rejected
by
respondent - From perusal of Khatauni,
there are six other co-owners of said
property,
whereas,
lease
deed
was
executed only by Raj Narayan and legal
heirs of late Lal Bahadur Singh - Other coowners not signed lease deed, since
partition had not taken place, land owners
who leased land to petitioner applied for
partition before SDM and on date of
application, offered land being Gata Nos.
485 & 488 not partitioned and lease deed
was not executed by all co-owners - Thus,
impugned order based on evidence, no
illegality. (Para 3, 5 to 8)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-13)

## Text

652 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
which are similar and have not been
amended even on 03.03.2025, and the
consequent refund shall also be made to the
petitioners in accordance with the law as
per the prevalent Rules.

42.

The
writ
petitions
are
dismissed except to the extent as noticed
above.
----------
(2025) 3 ILRA 652
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.03.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J.
THE HON'BLE VIPIN CHANDRA DIXIT, J.

Writ C No. 3824 of 2025

Deepak Kumar Verma ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Awadhesh Kumar Malviya

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I., Devi Shanker Shukla, Gaurav Kumar
Chand

Civil Law - Constitution of India, 1950 -
Article 226 - Against rejection of retail
outlet dealership - Petitioner applied for
the same in pursuance of advertisement,
fulfilled
all
requirement,
rejected
by
respondent - From perusal of Khatauni,
there are six other co-owners of said
property,
whereas,
lease
deed
was
executed only by Raj Narayan and legal
heirs of late Lal Bahadur Singh - Other coowners not signed lease deed, since
partition had not taken place, land owners
who leased land to petitioner applied for
partition before SDM and on date of
application, offered land being Gata Nos.
485 & 488 not partitioned and lease deed
was not executed by all co-owners - Thus,
impugned order based on evidence, no
illegality. (Para 3, 5 to 8)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-13)
(Delivered by Hon'ble Vipin Chandra
Dixit, J.)

1. The present writ petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India has
been filed by the petitioner for quashing the
impugned order dated 28.12.2024 passed
by respondent no. 3 by which candidature
of the petitioner for retail outlet dealership
was cancelled.

2. Heard Sri Awadhesh Kumar
Malviya, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri
Gaurav Kumar Chand, learned counsel for
respondent no. 1, Sri Devi Shanker Shukla,
learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 & 3
and perused the record.

3. It is submitted by learned
counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner
had applied for retail outlet dealership in
pursuance
of
advertisement
dated
28.06.2023. The petitioner has fulfilled all
the requirement as per the advertisement,
but his candidature has been rejected by the
respondent authority merely on the ground
that lease deed was not executed by all the
co-owners.
The
lease
deed
dated
23.09.2023 executed by Raj Narayan and
legal heirs of late Lal Bahadur Singh in
favour of petitioner for 35 x 35 meter land
(total area 1225 sq. meter) from Arazi No.
485 & 488 which fulfills land requirement.

4. We have gone through the
impugned order dated 28.12.2024. The
respondent authority had cancelled the
candidature of the petitioner on the ground
that the land was not leased out by all the
co-owners. The relevant extract of the order
3 All. Deepak Kumar Verma Vs. Union of India & Ors.
653
dated 28.12.2024 is reproduced
herein below :-

"Complaint 1:-
Land
offered
by
the
selected applicant Sh. Deepak
Kumar Verma has not taken the
land on lease from all the coowners;
After
investigation
of
complaint, findings are as below :-
1. As per the application
and khatauni submitted by you, the
offered land, Gata No. 485 & 488,
Village Piratipur, Tehsil & District
Ghazipur, is co-owner by Sh. Raj
Narayan S/o Kuvar and Sh. Lal
Bahadur S/o Kuvar.
Sh. Lal Bahadur S/o Kuvar
has passed away, and the following
legal heirs' names have been
updated in the khatauni :-
Smt. Vimla Devi w/o Lal
Bahadure Singh
Shri Manish Kumar Singh
S/oLal bahadur Singh
Shri Uday Pratap Singh S/o
Lal Bahadur Singh
Shri Subhasg Singh S/o Lal
Bahadur Singh
2. However, as per the
complaint,
after
verifying
the
khatauni for Gata No. 485 & 488,
it is observed that additional
persons were listed as co-owners. A
couple of co-owners have also
submitted affidavits stating that
they
are
co-owners,
and
the
property division is still pending.
The additional names are as
follows :-
Shri Ajay S/o Ram Ashish
Shri Vijay S/o Ram Ashish
Shri Sanjay S/o Ram Ashish
Shri Mrityunjay S/o Ram
Ashish
3. Based on documents
collected from the applicant and
the complaint, and after due
verification, it is observed that the
partition of the offered land was
not
carried
out
before
the
submission of the application for
the dealership. The landowners
who leased the land to the
applicant had applied for the
partition of the land at the SDM,
Sadar, Ghazipur, under online case
No.
T202414291000249
dated
15.12.2023.
4. As per the SDM order
dated 28.06.2024, it is clear that
the partition of the land has not yet
been completed.
5. The other co-owners of
the land, including Shri Vijay
Singh, filed a case in the Civil
Judge Jr. Division Court, Ghazipur,
which was registered as OS No.
185/2024 dated 11.03.2024, against
Shri Manish Singh and others,
including the applicant. The case
raises
objections
to
the
construction of the petrol pump, as
the partition among all co-owners
is still pending.
6. Opinion sought from our
panel advocate, Shri Vinod Kumar
Gupta,
Ghazipur.
As
per
his
opinion
in
the
letter
dated
25.07.2024, no further process
should be carried out as the offered
land is under dispute among the coowners, and the partition has not
been completed. The court has
scheduled the next hearing for
20.08.2024.
Additionally,
the
advocate's report dated 25.07.2024
and a copy of the plaint for suit No.
654 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
185/2024 pending before CJ(SD),
Ghazipur, indicate that the lease
deed has not been executed by all
the co-owners who inherited the
land from a common ancestor. No
partition of the offered Gata No.
485 and 488 had been made at the
time
of
executing
the
lease.
Furthermore, the said suit is
pending for the cancellation of the
lease deed. Hence, the allegations
of the complaint are substantiated.
7.
Based
on
the
investigation and due verification
of the documents, and as per the
details mentioned above, it is
established that the applicant did
not register the offered land with
all the co-owners at the time of
submitting the application. The
complaint has been substantiated.
Considering
the
above
points, your candidature for the
Retail Outlet Dealership at the
specified
location
is
hereby
cancelled. This decision is made in
adherence
to
the
dealership
selection guidelines and based on
the findings of the investigation and
legal advice obtained."

5. From the perusal of Khatauni
(Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition), it
is apparent that apart from Raj Narayan
and late Lal Bahadur Singh there are six
other co-owners of the said property,
whereas, the lease deed was executed
only by Raj Narayan and legal heirs of
late Lal Bahadur Singh. Other co-owners
have not signed the lease deed and since
partition had not taken place, the
decision of respondent authority in
rejecting
the
candidature
of
the
petitioner cannot be said to be arbitrary
and malafide.
6. It is also apparent from the
record that the land owners who leased the
land to the petitioner had applied for
partition before SDM, Sadar, Ghazipur on
15.12.2023
and
as
per
order
dated
28.06.2024 (Annexure No. 6 to the writ
petition), the land had not yet been
partitioned.

7. Upon perusal of the record, it is
very much clear that on the date of
application, the offered land being Gata
Nos. 485 & 488 had not been partitioned
and the lease deed was not executed by all
the co-owners.

8. The reasons recorded by the
respondent authority in rejecting the
candidature of petitioner for retail outlet
dealership is based on evidence and there is
no illegality in any manner. Learned
counsel for the petitioner has failed to
establish that there was any partition
between the co-owners or that the lease
deed was executed by all the co-owners.

9. No ground for interference is
made out.

10. The writ petition is devoid of
merit and is accordingly, dismissed.
----------
(2025) 3 ILRA 654
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.03.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, J.
THE HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.

Writ C No. 6049 of 2020

M/S Jai Prakash Asso. Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents