Dismissed

Rajesh Kumar and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC26 Sept 2023WRIC/31842/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Chief Justice's Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an order by the Executive Officer, Adarsh Nagar Palika Parishad, directing the demolition of petitioners' shops on grounds of dilapidation. Relying on a report by the Advocates' Commission confirming the structures posed a danger, the Court found no error in the impugned order.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed against the order directing demolition of the shops on grounds of dilapidation.

Rajesh Kumar and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Landlord and Tenant | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:187254-DB

¶2

Chief Justice's Court

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 31842 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar And 5 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Krishna Kant Vishwakarma,Rajesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Digvijay Tiwari,Sanjay Kumar,Satyavrat Sahai,Sunil Dutt Kautilya

¶5

Hon'ble Pritinker Diwaker,Chief Justice Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri S. D. Kautilya and Sri Digvijay Tiwari, learned counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3. Learned Standing Counsel has accepted notice on behalf of the State Respondents. Sri H. N. Singh, learned Senior counsel assisted by Sri Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel has appeared on behalf of the private Respondent Nos.4 & 5.

¶7

The present writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 06.09.2023 passed by the Executive Officer, Adarsh Nagar Palilka Parishad, Rasra Ballia, whereby and whereunder the demolition of the shops of the petitioners have been ordered to be demolished on account of being in a dilapidated condition exercising powers under Section 263 of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916.

¶8

It is the case of the writ petitioner that the impugned action of the respondents in passing the demolition order is unwarranted and the shops are in good condition and do not require demolition on the ground of being in a dilapidated condition. It is also argued that the impugned order has been got passed at the behest of the private Respondent Nos.4 & 5, who claim ownership of the shops and want to get the shops vacated from the tenancy of the petitioners.

¶9

In order to ascertain the correct factual position this Court deemed it appropriate to call for a report from the Advocates' Commission. Accordingly, this Court appointed Sri Mohit Kumar Shukla, AOR No. A/M0583/12, Sri Navnath Pandey, AOR No. A/N0275/2020 and Sri Kushagra Singh, AOR No. A/K0566/2022, Advocates to visit the spot, inspect the shops in question and submit a report by 26.09.2023.

¶10

The Advocates' Commission has submitted its report dated 23.09.2023 which is taken on record. We have perused the report. We find that the Advocates' Commission has carried out extensive inspection of the shops, taken coloured photographs (which are parts of the report) prepared a site map depicting the extent of collapsed, dilapidated and semi-dilapidated structures.

¶11

From the perusal of the report dated 23.09.2023, we are satisfied that the shops are in a dilapidated condition and pose danger to persons and property and warrant demolition. There is no error in the impugned order warranting any interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. There is no merit in the writ petition and it is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶12

Order Date :- 26.9.2023 pks

¶13

(Ashutosh Srivastava, J) (Pritinker Diwaker, CJ)

¶14

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

Rajesh Kumar and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Kumar and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and 4 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

Brijesh Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Ram Kishan Vs State of U.P.

Nakshtra Pal Vs State of U.P.

Chandrabhan Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

International Goudiya Vedanta Trust Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Smart Vishwas Society Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and 2 Others