Disposed

Lalit Kumar Tiwatri v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./ Prin. Secy. Revenue Govt. of U.P. Lko. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC13 Jan 2025/390/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court deferred demolition of premises pending a pending appeal against a demolition order passed under U.P. Urban Planning & Development Act, 1973, subject to petitioner's cooperation in the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Deferred demolition of premises pending decision on pending appeal against demolition order.

What the court decided

Lalit Kumar Tiwatri Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:2279-DB

¶2

Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 390 of 2025 Petitioner :- Lalit Kumar Tiwatri Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./ Prin. Secy. Revenue Govt. Of U.P. Lko. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Raj Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ratnesh Chandra

¶3

Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.

¶4

Heard.

¶5

Against the demolition order passed by the prescribed authority under Section 27 of the U.P. Urban Planning & Development Act, 1973, an appeal has been preferred by the petitioner under Sub-section 2 thereof, which is pending and the next date fixed therein is 16.01.2025, but the opposite parties have fixed 17.01.2025 as the date of demolition.

¶6

Learned Counsel for the petitioner relies upon three judgments of this Court dated 08.09.2020, 08.08.2018 & 27.06.2022 passed in Writ C no. 13722 of 2020, Writ C No. 25613 of 2018 & Writ C No. 4000 of 2022 respectively wherein it is stated that demolition should not be undertaken during pendency of the appeal, therefore, he says that the demolition exercise should be deferred. It is informed that the appeal has been filed within time.

¶7

If it is so i.e. if the appeal has been filed within time, then the demolition of the premises in question, which is the subject matter of the appeal, shall be deferred and the appeal shall be decided by the appellate authority expeditiously, say within a period of six weeks. If the appeal is decided against the petitioner, it would be open for the opposite parties to proceed as per law but without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner to raise a further challenge.

¶8

This order is being passed subject to co-operation by the petitioner in the pending appeal. If he does not cooperate, then it shall be open for the appellate authority to decide the appeal, as per law.

¶9

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶10

Order Date :- 13.1.2025/Lokesh Kumar

¶11

[Brij Raj Singh, J.] [Rajan Roy, J.]

¶12

Digitally signed by :- LOKESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Lalit Kumar Tiwatri v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./ Prin. Secy. Revenue Govt. of U.P. Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Lalit Kumar Tiwatri v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./ Prin. Secy. Revenue Govt. of U.P. Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Piramal Pharma Ltd. Thru. Authorized Signatory Pritee Tarkeshwar Misra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical and Health Lko. and 6 Others

Deepak Kumar Srivastava Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko and 5 Others

Pawan Singh and 8 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Govt. Lko and 3 Others

C/M Shri Lal Bahadur Shastri Shaheed Vidyalaya Samiti Raebareli Thru. Uma Shankar Mishra and Anr. Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Addl. Chief Secy. Institutional Finance Lko. and 10 Others

Gajraj Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./ Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 4 Others

Raj Kumar Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Revenue U.P. Lko. and 4 Others