Disposed

Mrs Anita Agnihotri v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC19 Jul 2024WRIC/22909/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad disposed of the writ petition challenging the sealing of premises. Instead of adjudication, the court directed the petitioner to approach the Kanpur Development Authority with an application within two weeks for a final decision.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to approach KDA within two weeks for appropriate application; writ petition disposed.

Mrs Anita Agnihotri vs State of Up and Another — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:115117-DB

¶2

Court No. - 29

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 22909 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Mrs Anita Agnihotri Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Vijay Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- Anand Prakash Paul,C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Vinay Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri S.C. Upadhyay, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents, Sri J.N. Maurya, learned counsel for Kanpur Development Authority and perused the record.

¶7

The petitioner has invoked writ jurisdiction to question the validity of order passed under Section 28A(2) of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act 1973 (in short the 'Act 1973'), whereby, the Kanpur Development Authority (in shot the 'KDA') had sealed the premises.

¶8

Learned counsel for the KDA raised preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that against the order impugned, the petitioner has got efficacious remedy to prefer an appeal under the Act 1973. Even on merits, as the map was sanctioned under Section 14/15 of the Act 1973 and during the construction it was found that there was certain deviation as per approved plan, the notice was issued to the petitioner and later-on the premises were sealed on 09.10.2019. In the said proceeding, the petitioner herself had submitted affidavit with an assurance that the construction, which was carried out by her contrary to approved plan, would be removed. Inspite of said assurance, instead of removal of the non-compoundable portion, she expedited the construction and finishing work, which action was disapproved by KDA and the premises was again sealed. He fairly states that in case an appropriate application is moved for redressal of her grievance, the same would be considered by the KDA as per building bye-laws.

¶9

Confronted with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioner states that leave may be accorded to the petitioner to press

¶10

appropriate remedy before the KDA.

¶11

Considering the factual situation, as the property is sealed, we are not inclined to adjudicate the matter in hand. However, in case petitioner moves an appropriate application in accordance with the Act 1973 and Regulations framed thereunder within two weeks from today, we hope and trust that the Secretary, KDA shall take a final call on the said application/objection in accordance with law in further three weeks' time.

¶12

With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶13

Order Date :- 19.7.2024 S.P.

¶14

Digitally signed by :- SANJAY PURI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mrs Anita Agnihotri v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs Anita Agnihotri v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Committee of Management Sri Surya Narayan Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya vs Avneesh Kumar Rai and 2 Others

Vinod Kumar Shrivastava vs State of Up and 5 Others

Head Constable Dinesh Chandra vs State of Up and 3 Others

Warish Ali and Another vs State of Up and 5 Others

Anil Mittal vs Union of India and 4 Others

New Okhla Industrial Development Authority vs Supreet Singh Suri