Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

GAYASUDDIN versus STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Gayasuddin v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - C No. 3449 of 1999 [2007] RD-AH 9012 (11 May 2007)

 

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.9

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3449  of 1999

Gayasuddin........................................................................Petitioner

Versus

State of U.P.

and others.....................................................................Respondents

Hon'ble V.M.Sahai, J

Hon'ble Sabhajeet Yadav, J

We have heard Sri H.N. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.M.D. Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

That the petitioner has set up a shop on public footpath.  It has been alleged by the petitioner that allotments were made in his favour on the foot path by Nagar Nigam and he has been paying tahbazari.  

This petition has been filed by the petitioner that the land on which the shop of the petitioner is being run may be converted into freehold land. The footpath  is for the public use.  It is used by the pedestrians and other persons.  In Shivala Footpath Sangthan Sansthan  v. Kanpur Mahapalika, 1987 UPLBEC,413 it has been held by a division bench of this court that the petitioner has no right to occupy the footpath.  This decision has been given following the decision of the apex court in State of U.P. v. Ata Mohd., AIR 1980, S.C. 1785.  In our opinion, foothpath and public patri cannot be given or allotted by the Nagar Nigam to any one to set up shop or for private business which would obstruct and hamper free-flow of the traffic and it would also be detrimental to public interest.

Under rule 7 of the U.P. Roadside Land Control Rule no construction can be made by any person within an area of 60 ft. in urban and industrial area.  In our opinion, no direction can be issued to the State Government to declare the land of the petitioner's shop as freehold nor it can be directed that the petitioner is a tenant of the said land in view of the division bench decision of this court in V.N. Pathak v. Vice-Chairman, Varanasi Development Authority, Varanasi and others, [(1999)2 UPLBEC 1583].

For the aforesaid reason, we do not find any merit in this writ petition. The writ petition fails  and is accordingly dismissed. Stay order, if any,  is vacated.

11.5.2007

Sc/-


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.