Partly allowed

Mayank Sharma v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Allahabad HC21 Sept 2023WRIC/26741/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the court directed the Nagar Nigam to conclude proceedings against unauthorized construction on a public passage within four months, provided no legal hindrance exists, while leaving issues of merit open for the concerned authority.

What did the court decide?

Directed Nagar Nigam to conclude proceedings against unauthorized construction within four months after due notice, pending proof of any legal hindrance.

Mayank Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others — Municipal and Town Planning | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:182572-DB

¶2

Court No. - 46

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 26741 of 2023 Petitioner :- Mayank Sharma Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shyam Shankar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Arun Kumar,Dharmendra Kumar Mishra,Ravi Prakash Pandey,Tanisha Jahangir Monir Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J. Hon'ble Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi,J.

¶4

Heard Mr. R.K. Ojha, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri S.S. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent No.6 and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

¶5

Grievance raised in this petition is that 7th respondent has raised construction of a room on the public passage which is creating hardship for the residents. An application apparently was moved by the aggrieved persons on the basis of which notice has been issued by the Municipal Corporation to the 7th respondent on 24.04.2023, and the grievance is that despite lapse of sufficient time, the proceedings are not being concluded and unauthorized construction raised on public passage continues to subsist.

¶6

Learned counsel representing the 7th respondent states that an interim protection has been granted to the 7th respondent in the proceedings pending before the District Judge, Ghaziabad. However, no such order has been placed before the Court in that regard.

¶7

In the facts of the case, we are of the view that in the event there is no legal hindrance in proceeding against the construction in question, the proceedings already initiated by Nagar Nigam on 24.04.2023 be concluded, after due notice to the parties, in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within a period of four months.

¶8

It is made clear that this Court has not examined the claim of parties on merit and all issues are left open for determination at the level of the concerned authority at the first instance, including the legality of the alleged construction itself.

¶9

Order Date :- 21.9.2023 A. K. Singh

¶10

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

Mayank Sharma v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mayank Sharma 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anand Vs State of U.P.

Israr Vs State of U.P.

Javed @ Banti and 2 Others Vs the State of U.P. and 3 Others

Inderdeep Construction Co. Vs Union of India and 4 Others

Indian Industrial Development Association Vs State of U.P. and 9 Others

Afaq Chaudhary Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others