Disposed

Ajay Gupta v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC22 Jan 2025WRIC/2099/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition against NHAI demolition notices for alleged unauthorized construction on national highway land. Respondent's counsel undertook to decide the petitioner's pending objection before any coercive action. Court disposed of the petition directing a speaking order and restraint from coercive steps until then.

What did the court decide?

Respondent no. 4 to pass speaking order on objection dated 10.10.2023 treating it against notice dated 26.12.2024; no coercive action until decided.

Ajay Gupta vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:11244-DB

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶3

(Sl. No. 63)

¶4

Court No. - 21

¶5

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 2099 of 2025

¶6

Petitioner :- Ajay Gupta Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Harish Chandra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pranjal Mehrotra

¶7

Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J. Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J.

¶8

The instant petition has been filed praying for quashing of the notices dated 3.10.2023 and 26.12.2024 issued by respondent no. 4 in purported exercise of powers under Section 22(2) of the Control of National Highways (Land and Traffic) Act, 2002 and to restrain the respondents from demolishing the shop of the petitioner situated on Gata no. 700 in pursuance of the said notices.

¶9

The case of the petitioner is that he is owner of shop situated over Gata no. 700 and has valid title over the same. He was issued a notice on 3.10.2023 by respondent no. 4 stating that he had raised unauthorized constructions between kilometers 128.500 and 128.700 of National Highway which is part of Gata no. 689 and he should remove the same forthwith failing which it would be demolished. The petitioner submitted a detailed explanation on 10.10.2023 stating that his shop is not situated over plot no. 689 but over plot no. 700. However, without taking any decision on his objection, respondent no. 4 has served another notice on 26.12.2024 on the petitioner reiterating the allegations made in the previous notice. The petitioner was also given three days time to reply to the same. It is submitted that since the petitioner had already replied to a previous notice and therefore, respondent no. 4 should decide the same and it cannot be permitted to demolish the shop of the petitioner without deciding his objection.

¶10

Sri Ram Chandra, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Pranjal Mehrotra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 4 very fairly states that respondent no. 4 would take a decision in the light of the objection filed by the petitioner and until the same is

¶11

decided, will not take any coercive action in pursuance of the impugned notices.

¶12

Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of in terms of the statement made by learned counsel for the respondent no. 4. The respondent no. 4 -Project Director, NHAI, Moradabad will pass a speaking order taking into consideration the objection of the petitioner dated 10.10.2023 by treating it to be objection against notice dated 26.12.2024 and until the same is decided, the respondent no. 4 will not take any coercive action in pursuance of the impugned notices.

¶13

Order Date :- 22.1.2025 Kirti

¶14

(Anish Kumar Gupta, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.)

¶15

Digitally signed by :- SMT KIRTI MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ajay Gupta v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay Gupta 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

Rajmani and 13 Others vs National Highway Authority of India and 2 Others

Vanshnarayan Singh and 16 Others vs National Highway Authority of India and 2 Others

Ramashankar and Another vs Union of India and 9 Others

Diligent Builders Pvt. Ltd. vs State of Up and Another

Smt. Vinesh and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Mohd Bilal vs Union of India and 3 Others