Nitu Singh vs Dr. Dinesh Chandra, District Magistrate, and 3 Other

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 7408 of 2025

¶3

Nitu Singh

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus Dr. Dinesh Chandra, District Magistrate, And 3 Other .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Dr. Vishnu Pandey, Piyush Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) :

¶6

Court No. - 9

¶7

HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.

¶8

The writ Court on 28.08.2025 while disposing of Writ-C No. 29509 of 2025 passed the following order:-

¶9

" 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Devesh Vikram, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents, and perused the record.

¶10

2. The present writ petition has been filed praying for quashing of the notice dated 30.06.2025, issued by the Nagar Magistrate/Niyat Pradhikari, Viniyamit Kshetra, Jaunpur (respondent no.4) under Section 10(2) of the Uttar Pradesh (Regulation of Building Operations) Act, 1958. The petitioner has further sought a direction to respondent authorities to decide her application dated 04.07.2025, which is stated to be pending before the District Magistrate, Jaunpur.

¶11

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner purchased land by means of a registered sale deed dated 29.10.2021, pertaining to Arazi No. 149, admeasuring 195.16 square meters, situated at Village Ramraipatti, Pargana Haveli, Tehsil Sadar, District Jaunpur. The said land falls within a regulated area under the 1958 Act. It is contended that the petitioner applied for sanction of building map, which was duly approved by the competent authority on 30.09.2022 (Annexure-6 to the petition). Relying on the sanctioned map, the petitioner constructed her residential house and boundary wall, whereafter she started residing

¶12

CAPL No. 7408 of 2025

¶13

2

¶14

with her family.

¶15

4. It is further submitted that despite the petitioner having constructed the house strictly in accordance with the sanctioned plan, the respondent authority subsequently demolished the boundary wall and restrained her from raising further construction. Thereafter, by issuing the impugned notice dated 30.06.2025, the authority has sought to interfere with her lawful possession, which is alleged to be wholly arbitrary, illegal, and unsustainable in the eye of law. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed a representation/application dated 04.07.2025 before the District Magistrate, Jaunpur, ventilating her grievances. The same, however, remains pending consideration.

¶16

5. The petitioner has also placed reliance on the protection available under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and the law laid down in Rai Ajay Kumar and others v. State of U.P. and others, 2019 (2) ADJ 728, as well as Gayatri Devi and others v. State of U.P. and others, wherein interference with property rights without due process of law has been deprecated.

¶17

6. Per contra, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel submits that the writ petition, having been filed against a mere show cause notice, is premature and not maintainable. It is urged that if the petitioner is aggrieved, the proper remedy is to approach the prescribed authority, which had sanctioned the building plan, and ventilate her grievances before it.

¶18

7. Having considered the rival submissions and upon perusal of the material on record, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the District Magistrate, Jaunpur, to consider and decide the petitioner's application dated 04.07.2025 by passing a reasoned and speaking order, strictly in accordance with law, within a period of two weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

¶19

8. It is further directed that till disposal of the petitioner's application as aforesaid, the parties shall maintain status quo with respect to nature, character, and possession of the property in question."

¶20

CAPL No. 7408 of 2025

¶21

3

¶22

Today, a compliance affidavit has been filed, which is taken on record, wherein, it has been stated that the application dated 04.07.2025 filed by the applicant has been decided on 19.01.2026, copy of which has been appended as Annexure No. 1 to the compliance affidavit.

¶23

In view of said fact, as the order of writ Court was to decide the said application, which the authority has done, the present contempt application is rendered infructuous and stands dismissed .

¶24

Contempt notice stands discharged.

¶25

(Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.)

¶26

March 19, 2026

¶27

A. V. Singh

¶28

Digitally signed by :- AJAY VIKRAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Nitu Singh v. Dr. Dinesh Chandra, District Magistrate, and 3 Other

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nitu Singh v. Dr. Dinesh Chandra, District Magistrate, and 3 Other

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Jitendra Kumar and 183 and Others vs Sri Ranveer Singh

Manoj Kumar vs Raju Solanki and 2 Others

Arun Kumar and 4 Others vs Sh Vinay Kumar Maurya, Sub Divisional Magistrate/S.D.O. and 4 Others

Vikas vs Mr Praveer Ranjan and Another

Harpal Singh vs Dr. Mahendra Dev, Director of Education (Secondary), Govt. of U.P.

Khem Chand and 5 Others vs Shri Ravi Kumar Ng and 2 Others