Allowed

Naresh Mittal Died and Another v. State of U.P. and Others

Allahabad HC26 Feb 2020WRIC/17644/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition challenged an demolition order and subsequent appellate dismissal. The court quashed both orders on grounds of natural justice violation due to lack of recorded reasons and unproven notice service. Petitioner directed to appear for fresh hearing.

What did the court decide?

Orders dated 16.08.1999 and 27.12.2005 set aside; direction to MRDA to pass fresh orders after hearing.

Naresh Mittal Died and Another Vs State of U.P. and… — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 30

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 17644 of 2006

¶3

Petitioner :- Naresh Mittal Died And Another Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others Counsel for Petitioner :- R.J. Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,B. Dayal

¶4

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri B. Dayal, learned counsel for the respondent appearing on behalf of respondent No. 4- Meerut Development Authority.

¶6

The present petition has been filed challenging the demolition order dated 16.08.1999 passed by the Meerut Development Authority under Section 27 of the U.P. Urban Planing Development Act, 1973, as well as against the order dated 27.12.2005, passed by the Commissioner Meerut, Mandal Meerut, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 27 (2) of the Act, 1973, has been dismissed.

¶7

The brief contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that no notice was served upon the petitioners prior to the passing of the order dated 16.08.1999, and as such the same was an exparte order. The appellate court records that two notices were sent to the petitioners, one on 03.06.1999, and the other on 17.06.1999, and the date for hearing was fixed on 24.07.1999. However, as no one appeared and the order was passed as exparte on 16.08.1999.

¶8

A perusal of the order dated 16.08.1999, does not record any reasoning and further there is nothing on record to demonstrate as to how the said two notices dated 03.06.1999 and 17.06.1999, were served upon the petitioners. Thus, in view of the fact that no opportunity of hearing was accorded to petitioners prior to the passing of the order dated 16.08.1999, the order deserves to be set-aside on the ground of it being in violation of principle of natural justice. This aspect has been ignored by the appellate authority in its order dated 27.12.2005.

¶9

In view thereof the present writ petition is allowed. The orders dated 16.08.1999 and 27.12.205, are set-aside with direction to respondent No. 4- Meerut Development Authority to pass fresh orders after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, in accordance with law.

¶10

The petitioner shall appear before the Secretary, Meerut

¶11

Development Authority on 23.03.2020 at 11:00 A.M., along with a certified copy of this order, who shall take further steps as directed in the order hereinabove.

¶12

Order Date :- 26.2.2020 S.K.

Naresh Mittal Died and Another v. State of U.P. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naresh Mittal Died and Another v. State of U.P. and 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

Yogendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Manoj Sirohi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Prateek Kumar and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rahul Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Keshav Singh Vs Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and Others

Om Prakash Sharma @ Bijendra Sharma Vs State of U.P. Thru Its Secretary Education and Others