Rajesh Kumar Kashyap v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Housing and Urban Planning U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC26 Feb 2026WPIL/172/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Encroachment on public road; removal of encroachment; Nagar Nigam / Municipal Corporation; inadequate police assistance; request to D.C.P. for police assistance; PIL No. 172 of 2026; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench; Rajan Roy and Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary, JJ.; petition disposed of with directions; liberty to petitioner to approach Court again within one month; decided February 26, 2026.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Municipal Corporation officials to seek adequate police assistance from the concerned D.C.P. for removal of encroachment and act thereafter, with the D.C.P. obliged to provide such assistance upon request; petitioner given liberty to approach the Court again if no action occurs within one month. ¶¶15

Rajesh Kumar Kashyap vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Housing and Urban Planning U.P. Lko. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶15

Issue for consideration

Whether the Municipal Corporation (Nagar Nigam) can effect removal of encroachment on a public road with adequate police assistance from the concerned D.C.P.

¶¶13

Court's answer

Concerned officials of the Municipal Corporation shall request the concerned D.C.P. for providing adequate police assistance for removal of encroachment and then do the needful after assessing the situation, unless there is a legal impediment such as a stay order of any court.

¶¶14

Ratio / Principle

If no action takes place within one month, it shall be open for the petitioner to approach the Court again.

¶¶14

Key takeaways

If such a request is made by the Municipal Corporation, the D.C.P. shall provide adequate police assistance for any such action as may be required in law.ratio¶¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Public Interest Litigation before the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench (Two-Judge Bench), disposed of on 26 February 2026 regarding encroachment on a public road. Learned counsel for the Nagar Nigam stated that an earlier encroachment-removal effort failed because of resistance by local residents and absence of police personnel. The Court directed the concerned Municipal Corporation officials to request the concerned D.C.P. for adequate police assistance for removal of encroachment and then do the needful after assessing the situation, unless barred by a legal impediment such as a stay order; ordered that upon such request the D.C.P. shall provide adequate police assistance for any action as may be required in law; and granted the petitioner liberty to approach the Court again if nothing happens within one month. Petition disposed of.

Rajesh Kumar Kashyap v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Housing and Urban Planning U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Kumar Kashyap v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Housing and Urban Planning U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohammad Zahid vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Urban Development Govt. Lko. and 4 Others

M/S Gayatri Developwell Private Limited Thru. Authorized Signatory Mr. Ankit Raj vs Anju Sharma and 4 Others

Union of India, Thru. the Secy. Ministry of Defence, New Delhi and 4 Others vs Ex Ser No. 12898401 N Naik Gd/Ta Narayan Dutt Punetha

Union of India, Thru. Secy. Ministry of Defence New Delhi and 3 Others vs 636232-S Ex Jwo Baban Singh

Manish Kumar Shukla vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko. and 4 Others

Bikanervala Foods Pvt. Ltd. Thru Auth. Rep. Mr. R.K.Srivastava vs State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Environment Forests and Climate Change Lucknow and Ors.