Disposed

Dharmendra Kumar Kesarwani v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC13 Mar 2019WRIC/17429/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought direction to remove illegal construction. The court found a notice was issued under the U.P. Urban Planning Development Act, 1973. It directed respondent authorities to conclude the proceedings after hearing within four months, dismissing the petition without adjudication on merits.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed without adjudication on merits; directed respondents to take notice to logical end after hearing opportunity within four months.

Dharmendra Kumar Kesarwani Vs State of U.P… — Municipal and Town Planning | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 21

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 17429 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Dharmendra Kumar Kesarwani Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- P.K. Upadhyay Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Devi Prasad Mishra,Om Prakash Mishra,Vijay Kumar Rai,Yogesh Agarwal

¶4

Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J. Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶5

The petitioner has instituted this writ proceeding for the issuance of direction upon respondent no. 4 to remove the illegal construction of 2nd and 3rd floor of the house no. 160, Bai Ka Bagh. The reliefs of the writ petition amongst other reads as under:-

¶6

"1. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 4 to remove the illegal construction of 2nd and 3rd floor of the house no. 160 Bai Ka Bagh in the name of Chandravati Devi W/o Kedarnath and Sharda Prasad and S/o of Kedarnath pursuant to the order dated 01.05.2008 passed by respondent no. 4.

¶7

2. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 2 to decide the representation dated 19.03.2018 moved by the petitioner."

¶8

This Court vide order dated 16.05.2018 directed the Vice Chairman of the Allahabad Development Authority to file his personal affidavit. In compliance there of, a counter affidavit sworn by Sri Bhanu Chandra Goswami, Vice Chairman, Allahabad Development Authority has been filed. In paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit, it is stated that the Development Authority has issued a notice purporting to Sub Section 1 of Section 27 of the Urban Planning Development Act, 1973, on 27th July, 2017 to the respondent no. 5 calling upon him to explain the construction raised by him in violation of Sections 14 and 15 of the U.P. Urban Planning Development Act. Para 6 of the counter affidavit reads as under:-

¶9

"6. That, in reply to the contents of paragraph no. 5 of the writ petition, it is stated that in view of the order of Civil Judge (Senior Division) Allahabad dated 19.08.2008 passed in the Original Suit No. 293 of 1994 directing status quo of the house in question, further proceeding in pursuance of the order dated 01.05.2008 was suspended. However, in pursuance of the application of the petitioner dated 11.05.2017 and 20.05.2017 notices dated 27.07.2017 under section 27(1) of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973, was issued to the Respondent no. 5 calling upon him to explain the construction raised by

¶10

him in violation of the sections 14 and 15 of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973. A true copy of the notice dated 27.07.2017 issued to the respondent no. 5, referred to above, is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure-'CA-2' to this counter affidavit."

¶11

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Civil Suit No. 293 of 1994, referred in paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit, has already been decided.

¶12

We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri P.K. Upadhyay, Sri Yogesh Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondent no. 5, Sri Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 3 and 4 and the learned Standing Counsel Smt. Savita Singh.

¶13

Having due regard to the facts of the case, we are of the view that the Development Authority has issued a notice under Sub Section 1 of Section 27 of the Act 1973 to the respondent no. 5. We direct the respondent nos. 3 and 4 to take the notice to its logical end, after furnishing opportunity to the respondent no. 5 and the petitioner expeditiously, preferable within four months from the date of communication of this order.

¶14

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶15

It is made clear that we have not adjudicated the matter on the merit. The respondent nos. 2 and 3 shall pass order independently, in accordance with law.

¶16

Order Date :- 13.3.2019 SR

Dharmendra Kumar Kesarwani v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dharmendra Kumar Kesarwani v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

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

Harikant Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

M/S Mittal Associates Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Ajay Yadav Vs Union of India and 4 Others

Sri Ram Lila Dashahara Mela Committee Vs State of U.P. and Others

Smt. Rekha Singh Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Ramdular and Others Vs State of U.P. and Others