Disposed

Nishar Husain v. State of U P and 5 Others

Allahabad HC19 Apr 2019WRIC/6574/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition concerning an unauthorized construction by the respondent no. 6 on government land despite prior notices, the court directed the Executive Officer to recover removal costs and disposed of the petition solely based on compliance with cost recovery.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Mahoba to recover from the respondent no. 6 the cost incurred for removal of unauthorized constructions.

Nishar Husain Vs State of U P and 5 Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 39

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6574 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Nishar Husain Respondent :- State Of U P And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Devi Dayal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., ,C.P. Tiwari,Chandra Prakash Tiwari,Virendra Kumar Gupta

¶4

Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar,J. Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J.

¶5

Four rejoinder affidavits and a compliance affidavit, filed today, are taken on record.

¶6

Heard Shri Devi Dayal, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State - respondent nos. 1 to 4, Shri V.K. Gupta, learned counsel for respondent no. 5 and Shri C.P. Tiwari, learned counsel for respondent no. 6.

¶7

The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking demolition of the unauthorised construction made by the respondent no. 6 inside the main road, Mohalla - Jugayana , Tehsil & District - Mahoba.

¶8

Briefly stated, the case of the petitioner is that the respondent no. 6 is the owner of a house property inside the main road, Mohalla - Jugayana , Tehsil & District - Mahoba. His map was sanctioned in the year 1992 and thereafter, he started making constructions of house and shops. However, it is alleged that in the process of construction, he encroached upon Government land. The petitioner, then, made a complaint before the respondents - authorities, upon which the illegal construction, to the extent of 2.5 meters made by the respondent no. 6, was removed by the respondent no. 6 himself on issuance of notice, prior to 12.04.2017, but thereafter, he again

¶9

raised illegal construction of 2 feet, which has also now been removed on 05.03.2019.

¶10

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

¶11

The learned counsel for respondent no. 6, Shri C.P. Tiwari, states that there are a lot of illegal constructions in Mahoba, which have not been demolished till date and only the respondent no. 6 has been singled out.

¶12

We find the submission to be preposterous and thoroughly misconceived. If the respondent no. 6, admittedly, has twice made illegal constructions, his illegal construction cannot be justified simply because some other persons in the Nagar Palika Parishad of Mahoba have also made illegal constructions.

¶13

We, therefore, direct the Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Mahoba (the respondent no. 5) to recover from the respondent no. 6 the cost incurred by the authorities in removal of unauthorised constructions made by him.

¶14

The writ petition, accordingly, stands disposed of.

¶15

Order Date :- 19.4.2019 Amit Mishra

Nishar Husain v. State of U P and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nishar Husain v. State of U P and 5 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

Sadhana Goel Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Pradeep Kumar Yadav Vs the Indian Oil Corporation Limited and 3 Others

Sapna Bansala Vs Director Bhutatwa Evam Khanikarm Nideshalaya and 2 Others

Balbeer Vs State of U P and 2 Others

Rakesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Mohammad Islam and Another Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others