The court observed that while the petitioner alleged jurisdictional error by the Ghaziabad Development Authority, he could have raised this fact specifically in his complaint before disposal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 29
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 4782 of 2018
Petitioner :- Mahendra Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Ors Counsel for Petitioner :- Sunil Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Vrindavan Mishra
Hon'ble Tarun Agarwala,J. Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
The petitioner contends that the Ghaziabad Development Authority is unnecessarily harassing the petitioner with regard to the construction raised by him. The contention of the petitioner is that the land in question is within the district Gautam Budh Nagar and the Ghaziabad Development Authority has no jurisdiction over it.
Be that as it may. It would be open to the petitioner to point out this jurisdictional fact in his complaint.
Th writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observation.
Order Date :- 5.2.2018 MAA/-
(Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.) (Tarun Agarwala,J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether writ petition concerning authority harassment needs further factual adjudication on jurisdiction.
Mahendra
State Of U.P.
Ors.
Tarun Agarwala
Saumitra Dayal Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
