Dismissed

Sparsh Bisht v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Allahabad HC19 May 2023A227/2744/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition under Article 227, the Allahabad High Court examined the maintainability and legality of an order directing demolition of a dilapidated building. The Court upheld the magisterial finding that the structure was over 80 years old and in a dilapidated condition, holding that no interference was warranted.

What did the court decide?

The petition under Article 227 is dismissed as no interference is warranted.

Sparsh Bisht Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others — Landlord and Tenant | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:109922

¶2

Court No. - 49

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2744 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Sparsh Bisht Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashish Kumar Singh,Ram Chandra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. Ashish Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned A.G.A. representing respondents 1 and 2.

¶7

This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging the order dated 31.08.2015 passed by Additional City Magistrate (First), Prayagraj in Case No. 01/01 of 2006 (State Vs. Rajan Mishra and others) under Section 133 Cr.P.C. as well as the order dated 10.01.2023 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 22, Allahabad in Criminal Revision No. 393 of 2015 (Mohan Bisht Vs. State of U.P. and others) (Annexures 7 and 8 to the affidavit) arising out of order dated 31.08.2015 passed by Additional City Magistrate whereby aforesaid criminal revision has been dismissed.

¶8

Record shows that an application under Section 133 Cr.P.C. dated 14.10.2004 was filed by the predecessor in interest of opposite party 3, 4, 5 namely Rajan Misra. The same came to be registered as Case No. 01/01 of 2006 (State Vs. Ratan Mishra and others) under Section 133 Cr.P.C. The said application was contested by petitioner, who filed his objection to the same. Ultimately, the concerned Magistrat i.e. opposite party-2 vide order dated 31.08.2015 directed for demolition of the disputed premises on the ground that same is in dilapidated condition.

¶9

Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 31.08.2015, petitioner filed a criminal revision before District Judge Allahabad. Same was registered as Criminal Revision No. 393 of 2015 (Mohan Singh Bist Vs. State of U.P.) It has been vehemently submitted by the learned A.G.A. that the said criminal revision was filed on behalf of a dead person. Therefore, same was not maintainable. However, the criminal revision filed by petitioner came to be dismissed vide order dated 10.01.2023.

¶10

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that since the disputed premise between the parties is a private dwelling house therefore proceedings under Section 133 are not maintainable.

¶11

When confronted with above, the learned A.G.A. invited the attention of the court to provisions contained in Section 133 (d) Cr.P.C. and on basis thereof, he submits that in case the dwelling house is in dilapidated condition, the concerned Magistrate can direct for its demolition. As such, there is no illegality or perversity in the orders impugned. Learned A.G.A. further submits that findings returned by concerned Magistrate vide order dated 31.08.2015 that the building is in dilapidated condition has not been specially challenged by petitioner alleging it to be perverse or erroneous. According to learned A.G.A, findings recorded by court below are definite and cogent finding. Same cannot be said to be illegal, perverse, illegal or erroneous in the facts and circumstances of the case. It is well settled the once the findings cannot be dislodged, the conclusion drawn by court below cannot be altered. He therefore submits that present petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶12

When confronted with above, the learned counsel for petitioner could not overcome the same.

¶13

Having heard the learned counsel for petitioner, the learned

¶14

A.G.A. for State and upon consideration of the material brought on record, this Court finds that it was specifically pleaded by predecessor in interest of opposite parties, 3, 4, 5 that the building is in dilapidated condition. The concerned Magistrate passed the order after considering of material on record and specifically recorded that since the building is in dilapidated condition, which is more than 80 years old, therefore same needs to be demolished. This finding recorded by concerned Magistrate has been affirmed by revisional Court. However the learned counsel for petitioner could not dislodge the said finding as having illegal, perverse or erroneous. It is well settled the once findings cannot be dislodged, the conclusion drawn by court below cannot be altered.

¶15

In view of above, no interference is warranted by this Court.

¶16

10.. Consequently, presently petition fails and is liable to be dismissed.

¶17

It is accordingly dismissed.

¶18

Order Date :- 19.5.2023 YK

¶19

Digitally signed by :- YASHWANT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sparsh Bisht v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sparsh Bisht v. State of U.P. and 6 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

Manappuram Finance Limited through Its Authorized Signatory Mr. Nikhil Chauhan vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashif Badar vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Nadeem Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dukhi Prasad Vs Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforecement

Rajesh Kumar Prajaptai Vs State of U.P.

Dr Anil Kumar Shukla Vs Central Bureau of Investigation