Allahabad High Court Fines Lucknow Development Authority ₹50K For Trespassing On Private Property

The Allahabad High Court imposed cost of Rs. 50,000 on Lucknow Development Authority (LDA) for trespassing on private property of a party and dispossessing him, without sanction of law.

The high court thus directed the LDA to restore the “possession of the shop” to the petitioner “forthwith”.

Petitioner owned a shop in Sahara Bazar, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow which was leased to the Sahara Group. The lease deed between Sahara and LDA provided for transfer of property by the Sahara Group in favour of a third party. For this transaction, the transfer charges for were to be paid to LDA. Petitioner claims to have paid the requisite transfer charges to LDA when Sahara executed the sale deed his favour.

Petitioner approached the High Court against eviction notice by LDA on grounds that there was no notice or order cancelling the sale deed against the petitioner. It was argued that petitioner’s constitutional right to property under Article 300-A was being violated.

While holding that the action of the development Authority was violative of the constitutional right under Article 300-A, Justice Pankaj Bhatia held,

“..ex-facie the action of the Lucknow Development Authority in interfering with the possession of the petitioner without adopting process of law, the rights accrued by virtue of Article 300A in favour of the petitioner, who claims his ownership and possession by virtue of a registered sale deed executed in his favour has been thrown to winds, no process known to law for eviction of the petitioner has been adopted by the Lucknow Development Authority, clearly dispossessing the petitioner in the manner in which it has been done is neither sanctioned by any law nor can be termed as ‘due process of law‘…For dispossessing the petitioner without any authority of law, the petitioner is entitled to cost of Rs.50,000/- to be paid by the Lucknow Development Authority, who have trespassed in the property of the petitioner without any authority of law”.

While directing restoration of possession to the petitioner and imposing cost, the Court observed that the authority could take action against the petitioner in accordance with law.

The plea was allowed.

Case Title: Mohammad Zaimul Islam v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Housing And Urban Planning Lko. And Another [WRIT – C No. – 6920 of 2025]

Counsel for Petitioner: Sachin Upadhyay, Shivndra s Singh Rathore

Counsel for Respondent : CSC, Ratnesh Chandra