Sahara Shahar Sealing: Allahabad HC Directs Lucknow Municipal Corporation, UP Govt To File Replies On Plea

Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court on Wednesday directed the Lucknow Municipal Corporation and the Uttar Pradesh government to file their replies by October 30 in response to a petition filed by Sahara India Corporation Limited, which has challenged the sealing of Sahara Shahar in Lucknow.

A Lucknow bench of Justices Sangeeta Chandra and Amitabh Rai passed the order while hearing the company’s writ petition. The court also instructed that any cattle left inside the premises of Sahara Shahar be shifted to Kanha Upvan and taken care of properly.

Sahara Shahar Sealed Over Lease Violations

The dispute concerns Sahara Shahar, a sprawling 170-acre township located in Lucknow’s upscale Gomtinagar area. The Lucknow Municipal Corporation recently sealed the property, alleging violations of lease and licence agreements signed with the Sahara group.

The Sahara group, however, strongly contested the allegations, claiming that the sealing was done in haste and without due process. The company argued that the authorities failed to prepare an inventory of assets and valuables inside the complex and that the decision to seal all six entry gates was arbitrary and excessive.

Sahara Argues Lack Of Notice & Hearing

Counsel for Sahara India contended that the municipal corporation’s move was unjustified and procedurally flawed, alleging that no proper notice or opportunity for hearing was granted before taking possession of the land.

The plea further stated that the LMC’s sudden action disregarded legal protocols and caused disruption to the operations within the township, which houses several Sahara group offices and facilities.

Nagar Nigam Defends Its Action

Opposing the plea, the Lucknow Nagar Nigam maintained that Sahara had violated the terms of the 1994 lease deed, prompting the issuance of multiple notices — first in 2020 and again in 2025.

Officials said that after providing due opportunity for a hearing, the corporation proceeded with the sealing of the premises in accordance with the law. The civic body claimed the action was necessary to reclaim the land due to non-compliance with lease conditions.