Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

NANAK CHANDRA AGARWAL & ANOTHER versus STATE OF U.P. THRU' SECRETARY REVENUE U.P. GOVT. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Nanak Chandra Agarwal & Another v. State Of U.P. Thru' Secretary Revenue U.P. Govt. & Others - WRIT - C No. 17986 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 7229 (4 April 2006)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

                                                   Court No.5.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 17986 of 2006

Nanak Chandra Agarwal and others. Vs.     State of U.P. and others.

Hon'ble Janardan Sahai, J.

             The petitioners have been issued a notice-dated 20.2.2006 by the Up Zila Adhikari, Jalalabad, Shahjahanpur alleging that they have purchased Gaon Sabha Plot no. 654, which is public utility land from certain private persons and are also making constructions over the chak road of the Gaon Sabha on plot no. 638 of village Roli Bauri and they have been called upon to give their reply within three days failing which action would be taken against the petitioners under the criminal and revenue law. The petitioners have challenged this notice.

          I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri V.K. Singh, learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha and the learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the State of U.P. Learned Standing counsel and the counsel for the Gaon Sabha and petitioners counsel agree that the writ petition may be disposed of finally today.

           Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have filed a reply to the show cause notice.

               A supplementary affidavit has been filed annexing thereto copy of the petitioner's application dated 2.4.2006 to the Up Ziladhikari Jalalabad alleging that the staff of the Up Zila Adhikari and the Tehsildar accompanied Dildar Hussain with whom the petitioners are litigating in a civil suit and came to the spot on 1.4.2006 and threatened the demolition of the boundary wall of the petitioner constructed over plot nos. 655, 656 and 653. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that after the notice was issued to the petitioners, the petitioners have filed their reply and no orders have been passed under Section 122-B or under any other provision of law directing the demolition of the constructions of the petitioners and in the absence of any order the boundary wall of the petitioners can not be demolished. There is merit in this contention. In fact the show cause notice issued to the petitioners itself states that if no objection is filed action would betaken under the law. It is of course open to the respondents to order demolition of the constructions if they have been made encroaching Gaon Sabha land but in the absence of any order directing the demolition of the constructions the State of U.P. nor its officials can demolish any construction.

     

           The petitioners have also prayed in this petition that the notices dated 20.2.2006 Annexures 1 and 2 of the writ petition be quashed. I see no justification for grant of the said prayer. The notices are merely show cause notices. After considering the objection of the petitioners it is open to the authorities to pass appropriate orders. The prayer to quash the notices is, therefore, rejected.

          In the circumstances the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondents 2, 3 and 5 not to demolish any constructions of the petitioners without any order under Section 122-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act or under any other provision of law.

        Copy of this order be made available to the learned counsel for the parties within two days on payment of usual charges.

4.4.2006.

s.


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.