Partly allowed

Sunita Mishra v. State of U.P. and 4 Ors.

Allahabad HC10 Sept 2020WRIC/12337/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged a demolition order passed without an opportunity of hearing. The High Court disposed of the matter by directing the petitioner to file a fresh comprehensive representation before the District Magistrate. Demolition was stayed pending the authority's decision on the representation.

What did the court decide?

Direction to file representation before District Magistrate within two weeks. Stay on demolition for five weeks or till disposal on representation.

Sunita Mishra Vs State of U.P. and 4 Ors. — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 32

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 12337 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Sunita Mishra Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Pratik Kumar, Arvind Srivastava Iii Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Shashi Kant Gupta,J. Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J.

¶5

This writ petition has been filed, interalia, for the following reliefs:

¶6

"(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the records and quashing the impugned order dated 29.07.2020 passed by the respondent no. 3 namely Sub Divisional Officer, Manjhanpur, District Kaushambi.

¶7

(b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 3 and 3 not to interfere in the peaceful possession of the petitioner and demolish the house of the petitioner situate at Ward No. 9, Ashok Nagar, Nagar Panchayat Karari, District Kaushambi in accordance with law. "

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Kritika Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State, Mr. Vikas Sahai, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 and perused the record.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the impugned order for demolition of disputed house has been passed by the respondent nos. 3- without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as such, the aforementioned order has been passed in utter violation of principle of natural justice.

¶10

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this writ petition is finally disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to make a fresh comprehensive representation before the respondent no. 2- District Magistrate, Kaushambi ventilating his grievances within two weeks from today along with a certified copy of this order enclosing therewith a copy of the writ petition and its entire Annexures and, if any such representation is made, the said authority shall make all endeavours to consider and decide the same in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within four weeks from the date of receipt of the said representation after making proper enquiry in the matter and affording opportunity to the petitioner. It is open to the petitioner to adduce evidence in support of his contentions.

¶11

For a period of five weeks or till the order is passed by the authority concerned on the representation moved by the petitioner, no demolition would be carried out over the property in question.

¶12

It is made clear, that in case, the petitioner does not file any such representation within the aforesaid stipulated period before the concerned Authority, the benefit accrued to the petitioner under this order shall automatically cease to operate.

¶13

Order Date :- 10.9.2020 Arun

Sunita Mishra v. State of U.P. and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunita Mishra v. State of U.P. and 4 Ors.

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

Arpita Nag Vs Union of India and 3 Others

Amandeep Singh Garcha Vs Union of India and 2 Others

Uttar Pradesh Aaloo Vikas and Viparan Sahkari Sangh Limited Vs State Agriculture Produce Market Board and 3 Others

U.P Medical and Health Public and Another Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Chetna Bhardwaj Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shekhar Upadhyay Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others