Disposed

Vidhyacharan Dwivedi v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC16 Jul 2024WRIC/13468/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that an impugned notice for removing an unauthorized structure lacked the required hearing details and was issued by an unauthorized private entity. The petitioner was granted liberty to file objections within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to petitioner to file objections within two weeks; impugned notice stayed for six weeks.

Vidhyacharan Dwivedi vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:113328-DB

¶2

Court No. - 21

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 13468 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Vidhyacharan Dwivedi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Diwakar Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J. Hon'ble Manish Kumar Nigam,J.

¶6

The written instructions received from the Competent Authority, Land Acquisition, is taken on record.

¶7

The petitioner has challenged a notice dated 19.02.2024 issued to him by respondent No. 4 requiring the petitioner to remove alleged unauthorized structure built over National Highway (Service Road-513+400-RHS).

¶8

The case of the petitioner is that a part of his land was acquired under the provisions of National Highways Act and for which he was also paid compensation. However, he had purchased certain other land (Gata No. 782) by sale-deed dated 16.08.1991, which was not acquired and the construction exists over the said land. The impugned notice issued by respondent No. 4 for removal of construction without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner is manifestly illegal.

¶9

Shri Rajiv Gupta, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel appearing for respondents No. 1 to 3 submits that the petitioner can be permitted to file objections against the impugned notice and the Highway Administration be directed to decide the same.

¶10

Sub-Section (3) of Section 26 contemplates that the notice would specify place and time of hearing of representation, if any, made by a person to whom notice is addressed. In the instant case, no time and place of hearing of representation has been mentioned. Moreover, respondent No. 4, a private concessionaire, has not

¶11

disclosed in the impugned notice how he was authorized to issue the said notice. It is noteworthy that the notice under Section 26 of the Control of National Highways (Land and Traffic) Act, 2002 can only be issued by Highway Administration or Officer authorized by such administration. Highway Administration is defined under Section 2(f) to mean the Highway Administration established under section 3. It is not clear how respondent No. 4 would fall within the definition of 'Highway Administration'. We are of the opinion that these aspects are required to be decided before action is taken against the petitioner.

¶12

Accordingly, we dispose of the instant petition with liberty to the petitioner to file objections against the impugned notice within two weeks along with supporting evidence and in which event, it will be decided by the Highway Administration or the Authorized Officer within next four weeks.

¶13

For a period of six weeks, the impugned notice will remain in abeyance and will thereafter abide by the decision that is taken on the objections of the petitioner.

¶14

In case, the petitioner fails to file objection within two weeks, the instant order will be of no avail and it shall be open to the respondents to proceed further in the matter in accordance with law.

¶15

Order Date :- 16.7.2024 Mukesh Kr.

¶16

(Manish Kumar Nigam,J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.)

¶17

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

Vidhyacharan Dwivedi v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vidhyacharan Dwivedi v. State of U.P. and 3 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

Committee of Management Inter College Newarhiya, through Its Manager Nagendra Sharma and 2 Others vs State of U.P. through Its Principal Secretary, Secondary Education, Government of U.P. and 8 Others

Smt Santosh Devi and Another vs State of Up and Another

Jiyaul Haq vs State of Up and 3 Others

State of Up and 2 Others vs Abhishek

Pramod Kumar Singh and 3 Others vs State of Up and 3 Others

Madhav Prasad Vajpayee vs State of Up and 3 Others