Lal Bahadur Yadav Vs State of U P and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2020) — LawSathi Research

Lal Bahadur Yadav Vs State of U P and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2020) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition finally disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal under section 27(2) U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act within two weeks along with a certified copy of the order; the appellate authority to decide such appeal on merits expeditiously, preferably within four weeks, by speaking and reasoned order after personal hearing, without reference to limitation; no coercive measures against the petitioner for six weeks or till disposal of the appeal, whichever is earlier; the protection ceases if no appeal is filed within the stipulated period; no opinion expressed on merits.

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition challenging the demolition orders is maintainable in view of the alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Section 27(2) of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act before the appellate authority. +1 more

Court's answer

Against the order of demolition the petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Section 27(2) of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act before the appellate authority, and the writ petition was disposed of on that basis with liberty to pursue the appeal.

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner is permitted to file an appeal against the impugned demolition order under section 27(2) U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act within two weeks along with a certified copy of the order; if such appeal is filed within that period, the appellate authority shall decide it on merits expeditiously, preferably within four weeks of filing, by a speaking and reasoned order after giving opportunity of personal hearing, without reference to the period of limitation.

Key takeaways

For a period of six weeks or till the disposal of the appeal, whichever is earlier, no coercive measures shall be taken against the petitioner.ratio¶14
The Court expressly clarified that it has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case; if the petitioner prefers an appeal within the stipulated period, the appellate authority shall consider the matter on its own merits.obiter¶16
If the petitioner does not file an appeal before the competent authority within the stipulated period, the benefit granted to him under the order shall cease to operate.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition under Article-free writ jurisdiction challenging demolition orders dated 27.11.2019, 21.1.2020 and 4.2.2020 passed by the development authority (Prayagraj Development Authority) was finally disposed of on the ground of alternative statutory remedy. Held: against an order of demolition the petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Section 27(2) of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act before the appellate authority. Petitioner permitted to file the appeal within two weeks with a certified copy of the order; if filed within that period, the appellate authority to decide it on merits expeditiously, preferably within four weeks, by a speaking and reasoned order after opportunity of personal hearing, without reference to limitation. Interim protection: no coercive measures for six weeks or till disposal of the appeal, whichever is earlier; the benefit ceases if no appeal is filed within the stipulated period. Court expressed no opinion on the merits.

Court No. - 32

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 12805 of 2020

Petitioner :- Lal Bahadur Yadav Respondent :- State Of U P And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Amit Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Arun Kumar

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

As prayed for, learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to implead the Commissioner/Vice Chairman Prayagraj Development Authority, Prayagraj as respondent no. 4 in the array of the parties.

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

"(i) That , it is therefore most respectfully prayed that the Hon'ble court may kindly be please to issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus and direct to Secretary /R-2, Prayagraj Development Authority, Prayagrj that he/ she may preent all the record of sanctioned map of 20 houses, which have build in Araji 350 and constructed the multi story building by the sanctioned map. Moreover, the Secretary/ R-2 Prayagraj Development Authority , Prayagraj may present all the sanctioned map of all the houses, which are built in adjacent arajais as 348,349,351,352,3(sa) etc. and these houe

owner have ever applied for sanctioning their house map by the P.D.A. authorities and made their house as per their sanctioned map. If this prayer of petitioner will not allow, it will cause irreparable loss and injury to petitioner."

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondent, learned standing counsel for the Development Authority and perused the record.

At the very outset, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that against the impugned orders of demolition dated 27.11.2019, 21.1.2020 and 4.2.2020 passed by the development authority, the petitioner has an alternative and efficacious statutory remedy by way of an appeal under Section 27(2) U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act for redressal of his grievance before the appellate authority but instead of availing the said alternative remedy, the petitioner has chosen to file the present writ petition, which is not maintainable before this court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to rebut the contention so made by the learned counsel for the electricity department.

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the appeal would be filed within two weeks from today and the same may be directed to be decided within a stipulated period of time and during the pendencey of the said appeal no coercive measures may be taken against the petitioner.

Admittedly, against the order of demolition the petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Section 27(2) of U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act before the appellate authority.

The petitioner may, if so advised, file an appeal against the impugned order of demolition under section 27(2) U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act before the appropriate authority within two weeks from today along with a certified copy of this order and if any such appeal is filed by the petitioner within the stipulated period, the concerned appellate authority shall decide the same on merits expeditiously preferably within four weeks from the date of filing of the said appeal in accordance with law by a speaking and reasoned order after giving opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner without reference to the period of limitation, if the appeal is filed within the time as indicated herein above.

For a period of six weeks or till the disposal of the appeal, whichever is earlier, no coercive measures shall be taken against the petitioner.

.

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. The petitioner, if prefers an appeal before the appellate authority within the stipulated period, the appellate authority shall consider the matter on its own merits.

It is also made clear that in case the petitioner does not file an appeal before the competent authority within the stipulated period, as indicated herein above, the benefit given to the petitioner under this order shall cease to operate.

With the above observations, the present writ petition stands finally disposed of.

Order Date :- 10.9.2020 MLK