Allowed

Ganga Prasad Shukla v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC15 Oct 2019WRIC/32704/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging an order removing encroachment on public land, the High Court found a violation of natural justice regarding lack of notice. The court allowed the petition, quashed the order, and directed the authority to pass a fresh order after affording the petitioner an opportunity to object.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 10.8.2019 passed by District Magistrate, Sonbhadra is set aside. Respondent authority directed to serve notice and give opportunity to file objections before passing a fresh order

Ganga Prasad Shukla Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 34

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 32704 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Ganga Prasad Shukla Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Awadhesh Kumar Malviya,Sunil Dubey

¶4

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. Rakesh Pandey, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. Sunil Dubey, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Additional Chief Standing counsel for respondents.

¶7

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶8

With the consent of learned counsel for parties, we proceed to dispose of present writ petition finally, without calling respondents to file counter affidavit.

¶9

This petition is directed against an order dated 10.8.2019, passed by respondent No.3 i.e. District Magistrate, Sonbhadra, holding therein that there is an encroachment on public land by petitioner's and same should be removed.

¶10

It is contended by Mr. Rakesh Pandey, learned Senior Counsel that impugned order dated 10.8.2019, passed by respondent no.3 is based on report dated 8.7.2019 submitted by S.D.M Robertsganj as well as note dated 15.7.2019 submitted by Executive Engineer, Provincial Division. The aforesaid report/note was submitted without giving any notice or opportunity of hearing to petitioner and the same were never communicated to petitioner. Therefore, report dated 10.8.2019 and note dated 15.7.2019 are exparte. Moreover, same have been relied by respondent No.3 District Magistrate, Sonbhadra

¶11

in passing the order dated 10.8.2019, but without supplying the same to petitioner, hence his order is also violative of principles of natural justice.

¶12

Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel could not dispute that there is nothing to show that aforesaid reports were prepared in the presence of petitioner or the copy thereof was supplied to petitioner giving him an opportunity to file objection against the same.

¶13

Considering above facts, in our view, there is a clear violation of principle of natural justice rendering impugned order bad. According, writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 10.8.2019, passed by respondent No.3 i.e. District Magistrate, Sonbhadra is set aside. Respondent Competent Authority are at liberty to pass fresh order after supplying a copy of report/note to petitioner and permitting him to file his objection. After completing aforesaid formality, Competent authority shall pass a reasoned and speaking order.

¶14

Order Date :- 15.10.2019 Arshad

Ganga Prasad Shukla v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ganga Prasad Shukla 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Triveni Prasad Srivastava and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru Secretary Deptt. of P.W.D. Govt. of U.P.

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. Heerakali and 6 Others

Priyam Anand Shiksha Prasar Samiti and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Basant Kumar Singh Vs State Consumer Protection Commission and 2 Others

Prasad Mandal Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sukhdev Prasad @ Sukhdev Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others