Allahabad High Court
Vishnu Kumar Gupta vs State Of Up And 4 Others on 27 May, 2024
Author: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:95811-DB
Court No. - 40
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 18273 of 2024
Petitioner :- Vishnu Kumar Gupta
Respondent :- State Of Up And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Kumar Mishra,Satya Prakash Pandey
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Harsh Vardhan Gupta
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. R.M. Upadhyay, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and perused the record.
2. Mr. Ashwani Mishra, learned counsel, has filed his vakalatnama on behalf of the Prayagraj Development Authority-respondent No.4 which is taken on the record.
3. 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 the respondent no.3 and Prayagraj Development Authority Prayagraj the respondent no.4 not to demolis the structure of the petitioner over the part of Arazi no.855 Ka ad-measuring area 162 square meters situated at Jaitwardeeh Tehsil Soaraon District- Prayagraj and further direct them not to dispossess the petitioner from his house without following the due procedure of law.
(ii) To issue a writ direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no.2 to pass an appropriate order on the representation of the petitioner."
4. After arguing at some length, learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his submissions, has placed reliance upon the judgment and order dated 19.3.2024 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in WRIT- C No.- 6462 of 2024 (Shiv Ji Kesharani and Another Vs. State of U.P. and 4 Others), wherein, in similar circumstances the petitioners have approached to this Court, wherein, the Court has proceeded to observe that it is not clear as to on which plot the offending shop situates or what is the nature of right of the petitioners (therein) on the land in question and whether the constructions raised by the petitioners is on their own land or such offending constructions are raised upon the public land also is a question of fact and the Court was pleased to dispose of the matter asking the respondent-Authority concerned to accord consideration to the claim of the petitioners and pass appropriate orders in the matter and only thereafter shall proceed further in accordance with law. For ready reference, the order dated 19.3.2024 is reproduced herein as under:-
"1. Petitioners have approached this Court with the grievance that their constructions existed on portion of land in Khasra No.855ka, Khata No.695 admeasuring area 1.1300 hectare situated in Village Padila Mahadev Jaitwardeeh, Pargana and Tahsil Soraon, District Prayagraj is proposed to be demolished by the respondents without service of any notice. In para 11 and 24 of the writ petition it is stated that the State authorities are forcing the petitioners to demolish their constructions.
2. Taking note of such grievance of the petitioners, we called upon the learned Standing Counsel to obtain instructions. Learned Standing Counsel has produced instructions received from the Sub Divisional Officer, Soraon, as per which there is old temple in the village known as Pandeyswar Mahadev and there existed a 10 meter wide road connecting to temple, on which, the petitioners have raised unauthorized constructions of shop, which is causing serious injury to the residents of the area. Various complaints received from the members of public have also been annexed alongwith the instructions. Copy of the instructions has also been furnished to the counsel for the petitioners.
3. Shri O. P. Singh, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that the constructions raised by the petitioners is not unauthorized and that in fact there is a sale deed in favour of the petitioners of the area over which their shop exists and, therefore, the proposed action of the authorities to demolish the constructions is arbitrary.
4. In the facts of the case, it is not clear as to on which plot the offending shop situates or what is the nature of right of the petitioners on the land in question. Whether the constructions raised by the petitioners is on their own land or such offending constructions are raised upon the public land also is a question of fact. In that view of the matter, we direct the petitioners to approach respondent no.3 alongwith certified copy of this order, annexing all materials in support of their claim over the land in question or the constructions. Respondent no.3 shall accord consideration to the claim of the petitioners and pass appropriate orders in the matter and only thereafter shall proceed further in accordance with law.
5. Subject to the above observations/directions made above, this writ petition stands disposed of"
4. In this backdrop, learned counsel for the petitioner states that present matter is squarely covered by judgement and order dated 19.03.2024 passed in Shiv Ji Kesharani (supra) and accordingly, the present petition may also be disposed of in terms of the aforementioned petition.
5. So far as the factual and legal controversy, the same is not disputed by learned counsel for the contesting respondents.
6. Considering the judgement and order dated 19.3.2024 passed by a Division Bench of this Court, we are with the respectful agreement of the judgement and order dated 19.3.2024. Accordingly, the present petition stands disposed of in terms of the aforementioned judgement passed in Shiv Ji Kesharani (supra).
Order Date :- 27.5.2024
Sachin
