Disposed

Someswar Prasad Chauhan v. State of U.P. Thru. D.M. Kanpur Nagar and Ors.

Allahabad HC23 Oct 2018WRIC/24822/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition seeking demolition of illegal construction was disposed of by directing the Kanpur Development Authority to conclude proceedings within three months after affording opportunities to be heard to the parties.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent no. 2 to conclude proceedings against respondent no. 3 within three months after affording opportunity of hearing.

Someswar Prasad Chauhan Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 39

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 24822 of 2010

¶3

Petitioner :- Someswar Prasad Chauhan Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. D.M. Kanpur Nagar & Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- N.L. Agrawal,A.Chauhan,Anil Kumar Singh,G.P.Singh

¶4

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Anubhav Shukla,Vivek Varma

¶5

Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar,J. Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Anil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Pradeep Kumar Tripathi for the respondent no. 2, Kanpur Development Authority.

¶7

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondents no. 1 and 2 to demolish the illegal construction of the respondent no. 3.

¶8

From the averments made in the writ petition it appears that the petitioner is the tenant of the ground floor while the respondent no. 3 is the tenant of first floor of House No. 214/6, Vijay Nagar, Kanpur Nagar. The petitioner submitted a complaint to the respondent no. 2 that the respondent no. 3 was making some illegal constructions but it is stated that when no action was taken under the Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973, this writ petition has been filed.

¶9

A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent no. 2, Kanpur Development Authority and in paragraph 5 thereof it is stated that the house in question has been referred to as 214/11 and it is stated that the respondent no. 3 has raised a construction in the second floor of the house and coming to know of the said construction a show cause notice dated 2.12.2009 under section 27 read with Section 28(2) of the Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 was issued to the respondent no. 3 but the respondent no. 2 did not file any reply. Another notice was issued on 10.5.2010 and thereafter a demolition notice was issued on 29.7.2010 for demolition of the illegal construction within 15 days. In paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit it is stated that the answering respondent has already initiated proceedings against the respondent no 3 for the illegal construction raised by him.

¶10

In this view of the matter we do not find it appropriate to keep the matter pending.

¶11

We therefore dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the respondent no. 2-Vice Chairman, Kanpur Development

¶12

Authority, Kanpur to conclude the proceedings initiated against the respondent no. 3 within a period of three months in accordance with law from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order after giving the respondent no. 3 as well as the petitioner appropriate and reasonable opportunity of being heard.

¶13

It is made clear that the Court has not adjudicated the claim of the petitioner on merits.

¶14

Order Date :- 23.10.2018 o.k.

Someswar Prasad Chauhan v. State of U.P. Thru. D.M. Kanpur Nagar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Someswar Prasad Chauhan v. State of U.P. Thru. D.M. Kanpur Nagar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Makhan Lal Nishad Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jasbir Singh Vs State of U.P. and Others

Sanno Vs State of U.P. and Others

Ram Karan Nishad Vs State of U.P. and Others

Smt. Pravina Devi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Meera Vs District Magistrate Bijnor and 3 Others