# Kamrunnisha v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2026) 4 ILRA 1442
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-04-16
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 37114 of 2023
- **Bench:** Ajit Kumar, Indrajeet Shukla
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/kamrunnisha-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54665
- **Pages:** 10

## Text

1442 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
police department and died during pandemic covid-19. Paragraph no.9 of the said judgement has
held thus:-

 "9. Husband of the petitioner, Head Constable Ashok Kumar Pandey while working at
Civil Airport Gorakhpur was involved in enforcement of COVID-19 protocol by ensuring social
distancing among the passengers as well as forcing them to undergo corona test. Admittedly, there
is no other force or employees except the policemen at airport who are deputed for this specific
purpose. The State cannot make artificial distinction among its employees to depriving one class of
employees from getting ex gratia compensation on their death despite the fact that they had
received corona infection on duty during COVID-19 period. Every policeman or other government
empoyee who has been discharging his duty during COVID-19 period for enforcing COVID-19
protocol will be deemed to be performing duty for prevention and protection of COVID-19 as
mentioned in Government Order dated 11.4.2020 and if he dies because of corona infection during
discharge of his duty then his dependents will be entitled to receive ex gratia compensation as per
Government Order dated 11.4.2020."

12. In view of the above and in our considered view as well the employees working in the
electricity department, water supply department, telephone department, police department and such
other essential services departments who worked during covid period would be taken to be on
covid duty as their discharge of duties helped the State Government in containing the spread of
pandemic covid-19 virus, treatment of the patients and their protection by keeping them in
confinement.

13. In view of the above, we are unable to sustain the order passed by the State
Government giving a very narrow interpretation to the covid duty only confining those people, who
were specially assigned to discharge their duties in treatment of people physically in hospitals.

14. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 28.07.2023 passed by the
State Government is hereby quashed. The State Government is directed to release the ex-gratia
compensation to the petitioner within a period of 30 days from the date of presentation of certified
copy of this order before it.
----------
(2026) 4 ILRA 1442
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.
THE HON'BLE INDRAJEET SHUKLA, J.

Writ C No. 37114 of 2023

Kamrunnisha ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents
4 All. Kamrunnisha Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1443
ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether the petitioner, widow/legal heir of original allottee of Quarter in question is entitled to restoration of
possession and execution of transfer deed despite absence of allotment letter in official records?

HEADNOTES
Civil Law - Constitution of India - Article 226: - Writ Petition under Article 226 - filed against State
authorities, for relief of restoration of possession and execution of transfer deed in respect of Quarter in
question - original allotment in favour of the petitioner's husband - petitioner inherited rights - unauthorized
occupants evicted - and further affirmed by High Court - lower authority's finding recognized petitioner's
lawful entitlement - whether absence of allotment letter could defeat admitted allotment and possession
rights - petitioner pleaded that respondents themselves admitted allotment - hence withholding possession is
arbitrary - State objected alleging no allotment letter and unauthorized construction - Court finds State's
stand contradictory and failure to produce allotment list fatal, adverse inference drawn - weaving is hereditary
and widow cannot be displaced - held, petitioner entitled to possession and transfer deed - writ petition
allowed with direction to the respondents authorities to restore the possession in favour of the petitioner
forthwith and execute the transfer deed in petitioner's favour.
(Para - 23, 24, 27, 28, 29)
WP - Allowed. (E-11)

CASE LAW CITED
Writ-C No.27434 of 2014 (Kamrunnisha v. State of U.P.) - decided on Dt. 20.08.2014,
Writ-C No.42854 of 2014 (Shoeb & Juned v. State of U.P.) - decided on Dt. 19.05.2014,
Writ-C No.59769 of 2014 - (Mohd. Shoeb And Another Vs. State of UP and others) - decided on Dt.
11.11.2014,
Writ-C No.18178 of 2015 - (Kamrunnisha Vs State of UP and others) - decided on Dt. 27.04.2015.

LIST OF ACTS
Constitution of India

LIST OF KEYWORDS
Writ petition - Allotment - Possession - Trespass - Weaver Colony - Widow's Right - Adverse Inference -
Transfer Deed - Unauthorized Occupants - allowed.

CASE ARISING FROM
Encroachment on Quarter No.3, Bunkar Colony, Varanasi - eviction proceedings - refusal of State to restore
possession to widow despite admitted allotment - Relevant Government Orders dated 17.03.1981,
18.10.1994, Notification dated 09.09.1994.

APPEARANCE OF PARTIES
Counsel for Appellant(s): - Shri Rakesh Kumar.
Counsel for Respondent(s): - Shri Pradeep Singh, Standing Counsel.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Indrajeet Shukla, J.)

Order on Civil Misc. Impleadment Application No.3/2024

1. None appears to press the application for impleadment.

2. Impleadment application is rejected.

Order on Civil Misc. Substitution Application No.8/2026
1444 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
1. Application for substitution is allowed.

2. Let necessary correction /amendment be carried out.

Order on Writ Petition

1. Heard Mr. Rakesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Pradeep Singh,
learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. Present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been instituted by
petitioner Kamrunnisha, being the wife/legal heir of late Mati Ullah (original allottee of Quarter
no.3, Bunkar Colony, Nati Imli (Labour Colony Chauraha), District Varanasi with the following
main prayers:

 "(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents
No.4 to give possession to petitioner over the locked part of Quarter No.3, Bunkar Colony, Nati
Imli, (Labour Colony Chauraha), District-Varanasi, expeditiously.

 (ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent
no.4 to take appropriate decision upon petitioners application dated 15.09.2015 (Annexure No.8
to the writ petition) in accordance with law within reasonable time."

Factual Matrix

3. The factual matrix giving rise to the instant writ petition is delineated herein as under:

4. The facts as culled out from pleading of writ petition are that petitioner's husband late
Mati Ullah was allotted Quarter no.3 Bunkar Colony Nati Imli (Labour Colony Chauraha), District
Varanasi by respondents under the State sponsored housing scheme launched for silk weavers. The
petitioner's husband was in possession and was continuously paying rent against the quarter no.3
allotted to him, admeasuring area 25 x 50 square feet. In the meantime, after death of petitioner's
husband, she being widow inherited the possessory rights. However, two persons namely Mohd.
Shoeb and Mohd. Juned forcibly grabbed possession over a small portion of Quarter no.3, initially
allotted to petitioner's husband.

5. Petitioner lodged a complaint on 21.09.2013 before the police for removal of the said
unauthorised occupants and thereafter, filed two representations dated 26.02.2014 and 05.03.2014
addressed to the District Magistrate, Varanasi.

6. On the representation dated 05.03.2014, filed by petitioner, cognizance was taken by 4th
respondent/Assistant Director, Handloom and Textile Industries, Varanasi Region, Varanasi and
notices were issued to Mohd. Shoeb and Mohd. Juned directing them to vacate their unauthorised
occupation qua Quarter no.3.
4 All. Kamrunnisha Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1445
7. Petitioner, thereafter, instituted Writ-C No.27434 of 2014 titled as Kamrunnisha Vs.
State of U.P. and 5 others which was disposed of on 19.05.2014 by following below quoted order:

 "From the records, it appears that the Assistant Director, Handloom & Textiles,
Industries, Varanasi has issued a notice to the fifth and sixth respondents alleging that the
aforesaid private respondents are in unauthorized occupation of Quarter No. 3 and calling upon
them to vacate the premises failing which appropriate action would be taken in accordance with
law.

 Since a notice has been issued by the fourth respondent, we direct that the fourth
respondent shall act in pursuance of the notice and pass appropriate orders strictly in
accordance with law after furnishing the fifth and sixth respondents an opportunity of being
heard, preferably within a period of two months of receipt of a certified copy of this order."

8. After the order dated 19.05.2014 passed by co-ordinate bench of this Court in Writ C
No.27434 of 2014, said Mohd. Shoeb and Mohd. Juned instituted Writ-C No.42854 of 2014 titled
as Mohd. Shoeb & Another Vs. State of U.P and 4 others assailing the order dated 07.07.2014
passed by Assistant Director, Handloom and Textile Industries, Varanasi Region, Varanasi by
which a direction was issued against them to vacate the portion of Quarter in question within a
period of one week, failing which, the Station Officer was directed to get the house vacated and
possession of portion of house encroached to be handed over to Smt. Kamrunnisha (petitioner
herein). The writ petition so filed by Mohd. Shoeb and Mohd. Juned was allowed vide order dated
20.08.2014. The relevant portion of the order passed in Writ C No.42854 of 2014 is extracted as
under:

 "In this view of the matter it will not be necessary to issue notice to the respondents and
the petition can be disposed of at this stage.

 As the order dated 7 July 2014 is not in accordance with the order dated 19 May 2014
passed by the Court, it deserves to be set-aside and is set-aside. A direction is issued to the
Assistant Director to pass a fresh order strictly in accordance with the order dated 19 May 2014
passed by the Court in Writ Petition No. 27434 of 2014 filed by Smt. Kamrunnisha.

 The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed to the extent indicated above."

9. Fresh proceedings were undertaken before Assistant Director, Handloom and Textile
Industries, Varanasi Region, Varanasi in compliance of order dated 20.08.2014 passed in Writ C
No.42854 of 2014 and order dated 19.05.2014 passed in Writ C No.27434 of 2014. The 4th
respondent/Assistant Director, Handloom & Textile Industries, Varanasi Region, Varanasi put the
parties to notice and framed points of determination to the effect whether the property in question
which was allotted to original allottee late Mati Ullah, has been trespassed by Mohd. Shoeb and
Mohd. Juned and the second point of determination was whether on the basis of affidavits and
material produced by Mohd. Shoeb and Mohd. Juned it can be construed that they are allottee of
property in question i.e. Quarter No.3, Bunkar Colony, Nati Imli (Labour Colony Chauraha),
District Varanasi
1446 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
10. The 4th respondent/Assistant Director, Handloom & Textile Industries, Varanasi
Region, Varanasi concluded vide order dated 18.10.2014 that Quarter No.3 was originally allotted
to late Mati Ullah and despite meticulous examination of material putforth by Mohd. Shoeb and
Mohd. Juned they were found to be trespasser. The operative portion of order dated 18.10.2014
passed by 4th respondent/Assistant Director, Handloom & Textile Industries, Varanasi Region,
Varanasi is extracted as under:

"आदेश

 उपिोि कववेचना / पिीक्षण के अधीन उि प्रकिण में यह आदेश पारित ककया र्ाता है कक
उ० प्र० िाज्य / उद्योग कवभाग बुनकि की कालोनी नाटीईमली वािाणसी में क्तथथत क्वाटघि नां. ३ र्ो
कवभाग शासन द्वािा एलाटी स्व. मतीउल्ला के नाम आवांकटत है, पि मु० शोएब व मु० र्ुनैद ने
अनाकधकृत रूप से अवैध कब्जा ककया है तथा कायाघलय द्वािा मु० शोएब व मु० र्ुनैद दोनो के नाम
प्रेकषत पत्र / नोकटस पत्राांक 116 कदनाांक 11.04.2014 पुष्ट ककया र्ाता है तथा मु० शोएब व मु० र्ुनैद को
आदेकषत ककया र्ाता है कक आदेश प्राक्ति के एक सिाह के अांदि क्वाटघि नां. 3 बुनकि कालोनी नाटी
ईमली वािाणसी को िाली कि देवें। अन्यथा उि अवकध के व्यतीत होनें के पश्चात आपके कवरूद्ध
आवश्यक कानूनी कायघवाही की र्ायगी कर्सकी पूणघ कर्म्मेदािी आपकी होगी।

 (कनतेश धवन)
 सहायक कनदेशक हथकिर्ा एवां वस्त्रोद्योग,
 वािाणसी"

Submission Advanced by counsel for the petitioner

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner who is admittedly legal
heir/widow of original allottee/occupant late Mati Ullah, filed an application for possession of
portion of Quarter No.3, which was trespassed/encroached by Mohd. Shoeb and Mohd. Juned but
even after recovery of possession, same was not restored in favour of the petitioner. Thus, she filed
another application on 15.09.2015 addressed to 4th respondent/Assistant Director, Handloom &
Textile Industries, Varanasi Region, Varanasi.

12. The further submission advanced by counsel for the petitioner is that the respondents
themselves have admitted the allotment of the quarter in question in favour of the petitioners
husband, late Mati-Ullah, by virtue of orders dated 11.04.2014 and 18.10.2014 passed by
respondent no. 4, and therefore, the petitioners lawful entitlement and right over Quarter No. 3
stands clearly established. But despite such clear admission by the competent authority, no
document or material has been brought on record by the respondents to dislodge findings contained
in the order dated 18.10.2014 passed by the 4th Respondent.

13. Once the allotment/occupation of petitioner & her predecessor in-interest is admitted,
there is no justification for the authorities to withhold possession of any part of the quarter,
especially after evicting the unauthorized occupants. Thus, such retention of possession is wholly
illegal, arbitrary and without authority of law.
4 All. Kamrunnisha Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1447
14. The counsel for the petitioner strenuously urged that the respondents cannot be allowed
to act contrary to their own records and orders, and they are legally bound from denying the
petitioners rightful claim to possession.

Submission Advanced by counsel for the State-Respondents

15. Learned Standing Counsel, while refuting the submissions advanced on behalf of
petitioner submitted that M/s Silk Weaver Cooperative Societies Limited Varanasi was given the
responsibility for the realisation of the rent for the allotted shops and deposit of same in treasury,
but due to non depositing of the rent in the treasury despite its collect, dispute started and as such
vide Govt. Order dated 17.03.1981 and 18.10.1994 it was resolved that the quarters in Bunkar
Colony would be transferred pursuant to Govt. Notification dated 09.09.1994 by District
Magistrate. The then Director Handloom & Textile Industries, U.P. Kanpur vide letter dated
22.11.1994 requested the District Magistrate, Varanasi to transfer quarters situated in Bunkar
Colony, Nati Imli (Labour Colony Chauraha), District Varanasi, but same could not be
materialised.

16. The further submission advanced by State Counsel also fortified by pleadings contained
in the counter affidavit particularly in paragraph 3H, is that a Committee was constituted under the
order dated 16.03.1996 passed by the Additional District Magistrate (Administration) Varanasi who
prepared a list of occupants residing in Bunkar Colony in which at serial no.3 against the
property/Quarter No.3, the name of Mati Ullah s/o Hafiz Ullah is mentioned. It has further been
emphasized that the records related to the allotment of Quarter No.3 in the name of late Mati Ullah
are not available in the office and at the same time, petitioner has not produced any documentary
evidence, establishing allotment of Quarter No.3 in favour of late Mati Ullah.

17. It was further submitted that petitioner illegally constructed unauthorised shops on
government land adjacent to Quarter No.3. The petitioner is also realizing rent from such
unauthorised constructions and therefore, the petitioner is guilty of encroachment and misuse of
government land. Based on the enquiry, respondent no.4 issued a warning letter dated 09.11.2022
directing for removal of unauthorised construction and handing over possession to the department.
It is further submitted that the petitioner has no ownership rights/valid allotment and is involved in
unauthorised occupation and construction.

18. The further submission advanced by learned counsel for the State respondents is that in
absence of allotment letter, the portion of Quarter No.3 which has been recovered from Mohd.
Shoeb and Mohd. Juned cannot be restored to petitioner.

Discussion and Findings

19. The factual position as emerges from thrashing out the material available on record is
that, Mohd Shoeb and Mohd. Juned were found to be unauthorised occupants of Quarter No.3 in
Bunkar Colony, Nati Imli (Labour Colony Chauraha), Varanasi and possession from them have
been recovered by virtue of order dated 18.10.2014 passed by Assistant Director, Handloom &
Textile Industries, Varanasi Region, Varanasi. The said order dated 18.10.2014 has been
1448 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
implemented through police machinery and the order dated 18.10.2014 passed by Assistant
Director, Handloom & Textile Industries, Varanasi was challenged by Mohd Shoeb and Mohd.
Juned, through Writ-C No.59769 of 2014 which too has been dismissed and the order dated
18.10.2014 has been affirmed vide order dated 11.11.2014. The order dated 11.11.2014 passed in
Writ-C No.59769 of 2014 is extracted as under:

 "Heard learned counsel for the parties.

 From the record of the present writ petition, it is apparent that the Assistant Director,
Handloom and Textiles Industries, Varanasi Region, Varanasi as per his order dated
18.10.2014 has held that the petitioners are in unauthorized occupation of the Quarter no.3
Bunkar Colony Natiimali, Labour Colony Chauraha, Varanasi. It is not in dispute that the said
quarter is the property of the State of Uttar Pradesh Industries Department. The Assistant
Director, Handloom and Textiles Industries, Varanasi Region, Varanasi has required the
petitioner to vacate the premises failing which legal action shall be taken.

 We find no ground to interfere with the order of the Assistant Director, Handloom and
Textiles Industries, Varanasi Region, Varanasi.

 This writ petition is finally disposed off."

20. After passing of order dated 11.11.2014 in Writ C No.59769 of 2014, petitioner
instituted Writ-C No.18178 of 2015 and this Honble Court asked the State counsel to seek
instructions, whether order dated 18.10.2014 has been complied with or not, then thereafter on
25.04.2015 order was passed by Additional City Magistrate III, Varanasi, which reads as under:

 "महोदय,

 कृपया िहायक िनदेशक, हथकरघा, वाराणि के पत्र िं0-136-39, िदनांक 15 िप्रैल, 2015 का
िंदभत ग्रहण करने का कि करें, िजिमें मा० उच्च न्यायालय, इलाहाबाद में योिजत िििवल िम० ररट यािचका
िं0-18178/2015 कमरूििशा बनाम उ० प्र० िरकार व िन्य में पाररत आदेश िदनांक 03-04-2015 के क्रम में
िवैध रूप िे आवािित क्वाटतर नं०-3 बुनकर कालोन में मो० शोएब व मो० जुनैद पुत्रगण जह र िहमद िे
ररक्त कराने ििन्ध है। िवगत कराना है िक िहायक िनदेशक, हथकरघा, वाराणि व थाना, जैतपुरा,
वाराणि के पुिलि बल क उपम्बथथित में िदनांक 24-04-2015 को क्वाटतर नं0-3 के िंश भाग में म्बथथत प्रथम एवं
िद्वत य तल ०8 कमरे एवं 01 बडा हाल को िवैध िध्याि िे खाल करा िदया गया है तथा िभ ररक्त कराये
गये भाग को खाल होने के पिात् ि ल बन्द कराकर ताला लगा िदया गया है तथा चाभ िहायक िनदेशक,
हथकरघा, वाराणि क िुपुदतग में दे िदया गया है। खाल कराने के उपरान्त मो० शोएव व मो० जुनैद एवं
उनके ििन्ध िपना िामान पुिलि बल के िमक्ष उठाकर ले गये। िम्पूणत कायतवाह क व िडयोग्राफ करा
ल गय है।

 आख्या िेवा में िादर प्रेिषत है।

 िपर नगर मिजस्टरेट (तृत य)
4 All. Kamrunnisha Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1449
 वाराणि ।"

21. Subsequently, another Writ-C 18178 of 2015 was instituted by petitioner which was
disposed of finding the possession of Quarter No.3/property in question has been recovered from
unauthorised occupants. The State respondents refused to hand over the possession of portion of
Quarter No.3 recovered from unauthorised occupants. Only on the strength that there was no
allotment letter available in their office and as such tried to dispute the allotment in favour of late
Mati Ullah and emphasised that petitioner has no right or valid allotment either in her favour or in
favour of her husband but the occupation/possession of petitioner and her husband has always been
recognized even by virtue of list of occupants prepared on 16.09.1996 brought on record by State
respondents themselves through Counter Affidavit and vide order dated 18.10.2014 passed by 4th
respondent and possession of petitioner has never been questioned by the State authorities.

22. The instant writ petition was taken up on 09th March, 2026 and on the said date below
quoted order was passed:

 "3. Learned Standing counsel for the State, at this stage, has drawn the attention of the
Court to paragraph no.12 of the counter affidavit in which a stand has been taken that there was
no allotment ever issued in favour of Late Mati Ullah for Quarter no.3. These averments made
in paragraph no.12 have been sworn by the Assistant Director, Handloom & Textile Industries,
Varanasi Region, Varanasi.

 4. On the face of it, the averments so made run contrary to the stand taken by the
officer of the same rank in the order passed for dispossession by him of the unauthorized
occupant on 18.10.2014.

 5. Let the allotment list of all the allottees of the colony in question be placed before
this Court on an affidavit to be sworn by the Assistant Director, Handloom & Textile Industries,
Varanasi Region, Varanasi by the next date fixed, failing which he shall be appearing in person
before this Court."

23. In compliance with order dated 09.03.2026, the matter was taken up on 31.03.2026 and
the State respondents failed to produced allotment list of all allottees of the colony in question
before this Court and as such, this Court is left with no other option except to draw an adverse
inference against the States stand and to treat the fact mentioned in order dated 18.10.2014 qua
allotment of late Mati Ullah to be correct which consistently remained intact even after several
round of litigation before this Court.

24. The respondents themselves have admitted the allotment of the quarter in question in
favour of the petitioner's husband, late Mati Ullah, in the orders dated 11.04.2014 and 18.10.2014
passed by respondent no. 4, and, therefore, the petitioner's lawful entitlement and right and
retention of possession over Quarter No. 3 stands clearly established.
1450 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
25. Despite such clear admission by the competent authority, no document or material has
been brought on record by the respondents to dispute or deny the allotment as claimed by petitioner
in favour of her late husband.

26. Once the allotment could not be disputed there was no justification for the authorities to
have withheld possession of any part of the quarter, especially after evicting the unauthorized
occupants. Such retention of possession is wholly illegal, arbitrary and is without authority of law.

27. We must record here that as per own averments vide paragraph 3 (D,E,F,G) the
proceedings were started to execute transfer deed in favour of those who were occupant of quarters
in weavers colony and transfer deeds would have been executed but for an intervention of Court
(Lucknow Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.1405 (M/B) of 1996, later on dismissed on
08.03.2013). The proceedings were reinitiated under direction of this Court vdie order dated
10.07.2014 passed in Writ Petition No.27435 of 2014. The Committee constituted for the purpose
of identifying occupants in the the year 1996 itself acknowledged petitioners husband being a
valid occupant by placing him at serial no.3 of the list prepared dated 19.06.1996. The list bears
signatures of Assistant Director Handicraft and Cloth Industries, Varanasi (para 3H). It is worth
mentioning here that ejectment of unauthorised occupants of the quarter in question namely Mohd.
Shoeb and Mohd. Juned both sons of Zaheer Ahmad had been done upon the complaint filed by her
vide letter dated 09.03.2014 in compliance of the order passed by this Court in a Writ Petition
being Writ C No.27434 of 2014 dated 19.05.2014. Neither at the time of compliance of Court's
order to evict unauthorized occupants nor at the time of passing of order dated 20.08.2014 in writ
petition being Writ C No.42854 of 2014 State respondents took any stand that writ petitioner had
no locus to either maintain a complaint or file writ petition as a wife of a valid allottee Mati Ullah.
We may observe here also that any suit filed by the unauthorised occupant namely Mohd. Shoeb
and Mohd Juned who have already been dispossessed, cannot weaken the case of the petitioner for
execution of transfer of deed. Once the Government had itself decided to transfer quarters to the
occupant-weavers in possession, the death of a husband-weaver cannot be a ground to deny same
rights to weaver's widow. In a family of weavers in India, all members do weaving and the
weaving is a hereditary art that passed on to the next generation. We cannot permit death of this art
by displacing the members of the family of a weavers from the colony upon the death of head of
the family.

28. The respondents cannot be allowed to act contrary to their own records and orders, and
they are legally bound to honour petitioners rightful claim of possession.

Order

29. In view of the above, writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 19.05.2014
is hereby quashed. The 4th respondent/Assistant Director, Handloom & Textiles Industries,
Varanasi Region, Varanasi is commanded to restore possession of the locked part of Quarter No.3,
Bunkar Colony, Nati Imli (Labour Colony Chauraha), District Varanasi to writ petitioner forthwith.
Transfer deed shall be executed to the successor of late Mati Ullah namely Kamrunnisha his wife,
the petitioner, in terms of order dated 19.05.2014 in Writ C No.27434 of 2014.
4 All. Vinay Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1451
30. There will be no order as to cost.
----------
(2026) 4 ILRA 1451
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J.
THE HON'BLE SUDHANSHU CHAUHAN, J.

Writ C No. 37749 of 2019

Vinay Kumar Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents
ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
(i) Whether the State of Uttar Pradesh failed to hand over possession of the mining area allotted
to the petitioner for carrying out mining operations;

(ii) Whether there was any determination of the area, if any, falling within the disputed territory of the State
of Madhya Pradesh;
(iii) What was the effect of the clause contained in the e-tender/e-auction notice dated 16.02.2018 requiring
the bidder to inspect and satisfy himself regarding the mining area before participating in the bidding process,
on the reliefs claimed by the petitioner; and
(iv) Whether the amount claimed by the petitioner by way of refund was in excess of the amount actually
deposited by him.
HEADNOTE
Indian Contract Act, 1872 - ss.20, 65 - U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 - r.58 -
Mining lease - E-tender cum e-auction for excavation of sand/morum over 25 hectares - Mining
lease executed after issuance of letter of intent and environmental clearance - Mining
operations disrupted shortly after commencement on account of boundary dispute between
States of Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh regarding river Ken - State Government
subsequently stopping mining operations and later permitting mining only in alleged undisputed
area - Joint inspection finding that out of 25 hectares only 12.86 hectares was undisputed while
12.14 hectares remained disputed - No assessment of mineral quantity in undisputed area - No
effective steps taken to resolve boundary dispute, hand over undisputed area, reassess mineral
availability or renegotiate lease conditions - Mining operations remaining suspended after
26.05.2019 - Lease ultimately cancelled on ground of loss of revenue - Petitioner sought refund
and restitution of the amounts deposited under the mining lease - Entitlement to refund and
restitution - Justification:

Held:
Court held that initially the entire area of 25 hectares under the lease dated 13.02.2019 was demarcated and
handed over to the petitioner. Shortly thereafter the dispute of boundary arose between the two States on
22.02.2019 thereby hindering the mining operations. Subsequently a joint exercise was also undertaken on