Dr. Veersen Saroha vs. State Of U.P. Thru Secy. Housing And Anr.

<u>Court No. - 2</u>

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 8868 of 2007

Petitioner :- Dr. Veersen Saroha Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Secy. Housing And Anr. Counsel for Petitioner :- Hari Om Singh,Dr. L.P.Misra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Anurag Srivastava,K.S.Pawar,Rahul Dube,Ratnesh Chandra

<u>Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J.</u> <u>Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J.</u>

Heard Dr. L.P. Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri U.N. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Ratnesh Chandra, learned Counsel for the Awas Vikas Parishad, Sri Shashi Prakash Singh, learned Senior Advocate, Mr. Sanjay Bhasin, learned Senior Advocate, Mr. Sarvesh Kumar Dubey, Advocate, Mr. Mohd. Yasir Abbasi, Advocate, for National Highway Authority of India, and Sri Raj Baksh Singh, learned Addl. C.S.C. for the State.

Apart from other arguments advanced by Dr. L.P. Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner, one of the arguments was that from the document annexed by the Housing Board in its counter affidavit as CA- 5 itself it is evident that the notice alleged to have been sent to the petitioner under Section 29 of the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhinivam, 1965 was sent on wrong address, as, the parental village of the petitioner, namely – Kaporkala is situated in District – Merrutt and not Ghaziabad, whereas, the notice has been sent to village -Kaporkala, District – Ghaziabad, and the said document at the appropriate place does not bear receiving by the petitioner, nor is there any other document on record to show service upon the petitioner in terms of the Rule 6 of the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad (Form and Manner of Service of Notice) Rules, 1967. Learned Counsel for the opposite parties may take note of this submission apart from the other submissions.

List/Put up this case day after tomorrow i.e. on 04.07.2025.

Order Date :- 2.7.2025 Lokesh Kumar