Disposed

Munna Khan and 6 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC23 Dec 2022WRIC/39608/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenged a second demolition notice issued without adjudicating the petitioners' reply to the first notice. The court directed the authority to pass a speaking order considering the objections within four weeks. Such action prevents coercive measures pending the decision.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed; direction to 3rd respondent to pass speaking order on petitioners' reply within 4 weeks; stay on coercive action pending the order's communication.

Munna Khan and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 21

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 39608 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Munna Khan And 6 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vineet Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J. Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.

¶5

The instant petition has been filed challenging second notice dated 22.11.2022, issued by respondent no. 3. It was preceded by a notice dated 1.11.2022 wherein it was alleged that the petitioners have constructed a house over Gata No. 365, which is recorded as khalihan and therefore they were directed to submit their explanation along with evidence within seven days, failing which the unauthorized constructions would be removed by use of police force.

¶6

The petitioners claim to have submitted their written explanation to the first notice issued to them. However, without considering the objections submitted by the petitioners, a second notice dated 22.11.2022 has been issued, stating that the petitioners had not removed their illegal constructions, despite previous notice and were once again required to remove their constructions, failing which the same would be demolished by use of police force.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners having already filed their replies in response to first notice, the respondents ought to have considered and decided the same before issuing second notice. The second notice, it is urged, is therefore wholly illegal.

¶8

Since the specific case of the petitioners is that reply submitted by them has not been considered so far, nor the same is evident from second notice, therefore, in our opinion, no useful purpose

¶9

would be served in keeping the matter pending or inviting response from the third respondent. The petition can be disposed of with direction to the third respondent to pass a speaking order, taking into consideration the reply submitted by the petitioners in reply to the first notice.

¶10

Accordingly, the petition is disposed of with direction to respondent no. 3 to pass a speaking order, taking into consideration the reply submitted by the petitioners in response to first notice dated 1.11.2022 within four weeks from the date of communication of the instant order, along with photocopy of the replies submitted by the petitioners.

¶11

The petitioners shall communicate the instant order to respondent no. 3, along with photocopy of their objections within two weeks from today and in which event, the respondents shall not take any coercive action against the petitioners until the objections are decided. In case the petitioners fail to submit copy of the instant order before the concerned respondent within time stipulated above, the instant order will lapse automatically and it shall be open to the respondents to proceed further in the matter in accordance with law.

¶12

(Jayant Banerji, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.)

¶13

Order Date :- 23.12.2022 Jaideep/-

¶14

Digitally signed by :- JAIDEEP BANERJEE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Munna Khan and 6 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Munna Khan and 6 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 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

Daleep Singh Vs Union of India and 5 Others

Bilal Ahamad Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

M/S Jay Prakash Thekedar Vs Commissioner, Commercial Taxes and Another

Shakeel Ahmad and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Irshad Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Jararuddin Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others