Vijay Singh @ Vinod @ Vijay Pal Singh v. District Magistrate, and 6 Others

Allahabad HC10 Jun 2022WRIC/16801/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed a non-speaking demolition notice issued by the District Magistrate regarding possession of government land. The court directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's reply and pass a fresh order within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

The impugned demolition notice is quashed and the respondent is directed to pass a fresh order after considering the petitioner's reply within four weeks.

Vijay Singh @ Vinod @ Vijay Pal Singh Vs District… — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 21

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 16801 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Vijay Singh @ Vinod @ Vijay Pal Singh Respondent :- District Magistrate, And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kiran Kumar Arora,Dhruv Kumar Dhuriya Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J. Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.

¶5

The petitioner has called in question a notice dated 21.5.2022 issued by respondent no.2 mentioning that the petitioner is in possession of Government land bearing Gata Nos. 106, 109 and 16 Bhojpur and that he should remove the constructions within three days, failing which, first information report will be lodged and constructions will be demolished.

¶6

The case of the petitioner is that before issuing the demolition notice, the respondents had not issued any show-cause notice. The specific case of the petitioner is that in the past, a similar notice was issued to him and it was contested by the petitioner. Thereafter, a report was submitted by the Tehsildar according to which land in question is not Government property. It is further submitted that before issuing impugned demolition notice, the petitioner was served with a notice by District Social Welfare Officer dated 1.2.2022 and in response whereof, the petitioner submitted a detailed reply on 7.2.2022 but without deciding the same, the impugned demolition order has been passed.

¶7

Evidently, the impugned order is a non-speaking order.

¶8

Since the petitioner had submitted a response and it is also his specific case that identical notice issued in the past was dropped, it was incumbent upon the respondents to have considered the version of the petitioner before taking any decision. The impugned demolition order suffers from the vice of arbitrariness and is hereby quashed.

¶9

Accordingly, the petition is disposed off with direction to respondent no.2 to pass fresh order in accordance with law, after considering the reply submitted by the petitioner, within four weeks from the date of receipt of true attested copy of the instant order along with photo-copy of the reply.

¶10

Order Date: - 10.6.2022 CS/-

¶11

(Chandra Kumar Rai,J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.)

¶12

Digitally signed by CHANDAN SINGH Date: 2022.06.13 10:29:20 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vijay Singh @ Vinod @ Vijay Pal Singh v. District Magistrate, and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Singh @ Vinod @ Vijay Pal Singh v. District Magistrate, and 6 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

Ram Kishan and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ashok Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Ajij and Another Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Harun Ali Vs State of U.P. and Another

Anant Kumar Agarwal Vs U.P. Jal Vidyut Nigam Limited and 3 Others

M/S Prem Engineering Vs U.P. Jal Vidyut Nigam Limited and 3 Others