Allahabad High Court
Shahrukh Khan vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 31 May, 2024
Author: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:100599-DB
Court No. - 2
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 19194 of 2024
Petitioner :- Shahrukh Khan
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Puneet Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ravi Prakash Pandey
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri Ambrish Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondent and Sri Ravi Prakash Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent-Ghaziabad Development Authority (in short "GDA").
2. The present writ petition has been preferred assailing the orders impugned dated 28.8.2023, 27.9.2023 and 13.10.2023 passed by the third respondent (Annexure Nos. 1, 2 and 3 to the writ petition respectively). Alternatively, prayer is made for a mandamus commanding the respondent authorities not to interfere in the peaceful occupation of the petitioner.
3. The relief is being pressed in the light of judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court dated 30.4.2024 in Writ C No. 14125 of 2024 (Mohd Hanif v. State of U.P. And 2 Others). Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present matter is squarely covered with the aforesaid judgment and the similar indulgence may also be extended in favour of the petitioner.
4. Per contra, the aforesaid relief is being resisted by Sri Ravi Prakash Pandey, learned counsel for the contesting-respondent and reliance has been placed upon the letter dated 13.10.2023 issued by Incharge Enforcement Zone-8, GDA (Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition), wherein, it is averred that not only the construction raised by the petitioner is illegal but also the entire colony in question is unauthorised. He has further placed reliance upon paragraph 5 of the judgment in Mohd Hanif (supra), which reads as under.
"5. Per contra, learned counsel for GDA submits that the G.O. dated 4.1.2008 is confined only to old construction/ area below 100 sq. mtrs., wherein there is no requirement for permission to make construction or renovation. But the construction/ renovation should not be in violation to the master plan of the city and also not contrary to the building byelaws of the Authority. Further the set back area is to be left over and the construction is also not permissible above three stories. He submits that the Development Authority shall definitely examine the matter on merit and shall pass necessary orders in this regard in accordance with law. He further submits that against the orders impugned the petitioner has efficacious remedy of an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner under the Act, 1973 and even, thereafter, the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner can also be challenged under Section 41 of the Act, 1972."
5. In this backdrop, learned counsel for the contesting-respondent vehemently contended that the entire relief as has been prayed for, is misconceived and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the objections so raised by learned counsel for the contesting-respondent, we find that the claim of the petitioner is to be considered by the GDA strictly in accordance with law but certainly in the light of the observations made by this Court in Mohd Hanif (supra) within three weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. Meanwhile, the petitioner is restrained to carry out any further development activity over the disputed site.
7. With the aforesaid observations, the present writ petition stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 31.5.2024
A.K.Srivastava
