Naresh Kumar And Others vs State Of U.P. Thru Secy. And Others
2012 Latest Caselaw 3628 ALL

Citation : 2012 Latest Caselaw 3628 ALL
Judgement Date : 22 August, 2012

Allahabad High Court

Naresh Kumar And Others vs State Of U.P. Thru Secy. And Others on 22 August, 2012

Bench: Satya Poot Mehrotra, Het Singh Yadav




HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 35
 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 34427 of 2012
 
Petitioner :- Naresh Kumar And Others
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Secy. And Others
 
Petitioner Counsel :- Arvind K. Pandey
 
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,P.K. Singh
 
Hon'ble Satya Poot Mehrotra,J.

Hon'ble Het Singh Yadav,J.

Heard Shri Arvind Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Shri P.K. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 (Moradabad Development Authority).

The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner has purchased the plot in question bearing no. 374, situated in the village Shahpur Tigri, Pargana, Tehsil and District Moradabad by Registered Sale-Deed dated 25th February, 2012. The said plot in question has not been acquired for the purposes of Moradabad Development Authority. However, despite no acquisition having been made, Moradabad Development Authority is trying to construct road on the said plot in question. In the circumstances, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter-alia, praying for direction to the respondents not to construct road on the said plot in question.

Shri P.K. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3, on the basis of instructions received by him, has made statement that the road is not being constructed on the said plot in question, namely, plot no. 374 belonging to the petitioner.

It is thus evident that for resolving the controversy involved in the present Writ Petition, questions of fact will have to be gone into which will require leading of oral and documentary evidence. Such exercise cannot appropriately be done in the Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner may pursue appropriate remedy before appropriate forum for seeking appropriate relief in regard to his alleged grievances. The present Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.

In view of the above, Writ Petition is dismissed. However, the dismissal of Writ Petition will not come in the way of the petitioner in pursuing appropriate remedy before appropriate forum for appropriate relief for redressal of his alleged grievances.

Order Date :- 22.8.2012/Shekhar