Allahabad High Court
Amresh Pratap Singh vs State Of Up And 3 Others on 2 May, 2024
Author: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:78860-DB
Court No. - 40
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 13634 of 2024
Petitioner :- Amresh Pratap Singh
Respondent :- State Of Up And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rahul Chaudhary,Shiv Sharan Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- Arun Kumar,C.S.C.,Chanchal Kumar Rai,Manoj Kumar Singh,Pawan Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ambrish Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State, Mr. Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 4 and perused the record.
2. By means of the instant petition, the petitioner has prayed for following principal reliefs:-
"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding respondent 2 to 5 not to carry out excavation work over the Plot No.20 of Mauja Karanpur Pargana and Tehsil: Chaayal, District- Allahabad, which is the absolute ownership of the petitioner, for road widening without following due procedure of law.
(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents no.2 to 4 to first verify the title of the Plot No.20 of Mauja Karanpur Pargana and Tehsil: Chaayal, District Allahabad which is owned by the petitioners and if so firstly acquire and then the Authority would proceed to utilize the land for road widening.
(iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus restraining respondent 2 to 5 from carrying out any construction work/ excavation work inside the boundary walls of the petitioner's house situated over Plot No.28 & 20 of Mauja Karanpur Pargana and Tehsil: Chaayal, District Allahabad."
3. This Court while entertaining the instant petition on 26.4.2024 has proceeded to pass the order with following effects:-
"1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ambrish Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Sri Siddharth Mishra holding brief of learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 4.
2. Grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents are utilizing the land of the petitioner without any acquisition or proceeding under the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 (in short 'the Act, 1973'). Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that till date, the petitioner has not received any notice and on the spot, the respondents are carrying out the activity. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance upon judgment of Division Bench dated 02.11.2023 passed Writ-C No.37881 of 2023 (Smt. Padmavati and 3 others vs. State of U.P. and 2 others).
3. Per contra, learned counsel who appears for the respondent Nos.2 and 4 - Prayagraj Development Authority submits that some breathing time may be accorded so that he may get proper instructions in the matter whether any notice has ever been served upon the petitioner under the Act, 1973 or not.
4. Before proceeding further in the matter, let appropriate instructions be obtained.
5. Put up this matter again as fresh 02.05.2024."
4. In response to the aforesaid order dated 26.4.2024 passed by this Court, Mr. Arun Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the Nos.2 and 4 - Prayagraj Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the "Authority") has filed the detailed instructions wherein it is mentioned that notice under Section 27(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Development Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1973") was issued to the petitioner herein.
5. Mr. Arun Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.2 and 4- Authority has raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition on two-fold submissions, firstly, on the ground that the till date, the petitioner has not submitted the map which is required under Section 14/15 of the Act, 1973 as the land in question is under the limits of the Authority and the onus is on the incumbent who claims the ownership to get its map sanctioned in accordance with the provisions of the Act, 1973 and secondly, in case the proceedings are finalized under Section 27(1) of the Act, 1973, the petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy to file an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner and thereafter, the revision before the State Government. Therefore, the present writ petition is premature and the same is liable to be dismissed.
6. Considering the objection so raised by the learned counsel appearing for the Authority, at this stage, we are not inclined to interfere in the matter. Needless to say, in case the petitioner so advised, he may avail the alternative remedy as contemplated under the law.
7. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 2.5.2024
Sachin
