No determination of their leases and no plan to rehabilitate or compensate them: the Allahabad High Court has called the Arbitrary Eviction Of Ayodhya Shopkeepers to make way for a government hospital highly condemnable, and wants the State to explain how it will rehabilitate or compensate them.
Lucknow: Six shopkeepers at the Sitapur Eye Hospital complex in Ayodhya were evicted from their leasehold shops for a proposed 300-bed super-specialty hospital, and the Allahabad High Court has termed the conduct of the State authorities “highly condemnable”. A counter affidavit on rehabilitation or compensation is to be filed by an officer not below the rank of Secretary, Medical and Health Department [Mohd. Naeem and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others].
The Lucknow Bench order of October 12, 2026 in Writ-C No. 9961 of 2026 was passed by a Division Bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Amitabh Kumar Rai. It is an interim order: the Court has called for the State’s response and has not finally decided the petition.
“Highly condemnable”
Notice to vacate had been issued without the leases being determined, which the Bench found surprising, and it held that the respondents acted without any plan for the petitioners.
“It is surprising that despite the petitioners having been allotted the shops and having acquired the status of lessees in accordance with the rules governing such allotments, they have been asked to vacate the premises without determination of their leases or any proposal to rehabilitate or compensate them for their eviction from the premises. Such conduct on the part of the respondents is highly condemnable and cannot be appreciated as the action of the respondents adversely affects the right of the petitioners towards their livelihood and is violative of Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.”
The public purpose behind the project was accepted by the Court, but not at the cost of the petitioners’ livelihood without any alternative.
“We are conscious of the fact that the construction of a 300 bed super specialty hospital is in the public interest, but it is also equally important that the petitioners, who were carrying on the business earning their livelihood, cannot be thrown out without making any alternative arrangement for their rehabilitation or compensating them for the loss.”
ALSO READ: “Pay Rs 5 Lakh Compensation for Bulldozing Man’s Shops”: Jharkhand HC Orders State
Three weeks, a Secretary and November 16
Within three weeks, the respondents must file a counter affidavit “indicating the steps proposed to be taken for the rehabilitation of the petitioners or for compensating them in lieu of the shops allotted to them from which they have been arbitrarily evicted and the shops have also been demolished”. An officer not below the rank of Secretary, Medical and Health Department must file it. A rejoinder, if any, may follow within two weeks, and the case is listed on November 16, 2026 as a fresh case.
The auction of 2000, as the petitioners tell it
The petitioners describe themselves as small shopkeepers. According to them, the Sitapur Eye Hospital Society, Faizabad, allotted them six shops by auction in 2000 on a thirty-year lease under the Sitapur Netra Chikitsalaya Complex Niyamawali. The rules provided for a registration fee of Rs. 500, security of Rs. 25,000 and a minimum reserved premium of Rs. 80,000. Possession letters were issued on February 28, 2000, with rent payable from March 1, 2000, and the rules treated the allotment as a leasehold renewable every thirty years.
The 300-bed hospital project at the Sitapur Eye Hospital site received final approval in late June 2025. On June 26, 2025, the District Magistrate, Ayodhya, issued a notice stating that the land and shops had been transferred to the Department of Health and Family Welfare and asking the petitioners to vacate within fifteen days.
Writ-C No. 6771 of 2025, their first writ petition, was disposed of with a direction to decide their representation and to maintain status quo until then. The District Magistrate, who is also President of the Sitapur Netra Chikitsalaya Samiti, decided it by an order dated July 31, 2026. That order accepted that the shops were allotted as leaseholds under the Niyamawali but rejected the representation. It recorded that the land had been transferred by a Government Order dated April 10, 2024 for the hospital and that the petitioners had no right to continue. The present writ petition challenges that order.
Livelihood and Olga Tellis
Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution were the Bench’s footing. The principle that the right to life includes the right to livelihood traces to the Constitution Bench ruling in Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, decided on July 10, 1985, which also held that a person can be deprived of livelihood only by a fair and just procedure. That ruling upheld the removal of pavement encroachments after finding the procedure reasonable, while ordering rehabilitation measures.
The process, not the project
Public infrastructure and the rights of lawful occupants pull against each other again here. The Bench did not question the hospital project. Its concern was the process: lessees whose tenure the authorities themselves had acknowledged were evicted with no determination of the leases and no rehabilitation or compensation plan.
The Secretary-level affidavit puts responsibility for a concrete plan at a senior level, and the State’s response on November 16 will show how the authorities propose to address the petitioners’ claims.
Case Title: Mohd. Naeem and 5 Others v. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary, Medical Health Department, Lucknow, and 2 Others [Writ-C No. 9961 of 2026]
Bench: Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Amitabh Kumar Rai, Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench
Date of Order: October 12, 2026
Appearances: Amit Chaudhary and Pradeep Tiwari for the petitioners; Chief Standing Counsel and Rohit Tripathi for the respondents