Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Rehmat Ullah & Others v. State Of U.P. Thru' Secy. & Others - WRIT - C No. 52220 of 2005 [2005] RD-AH 1775 (27 July 2005)


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).



Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.52220 of 2005

Rehmat Ullah & Ors.


State of U.P. & Ors.

Hon'ble Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.

Hon'ble Dilip Gupta, J.

This writ petition has been filed for a direction upon the respondents not to demolish the shop of the petitioners situate at Meeranpur, Katra, Tilhar, District Shahjahanpur.

We have heard Sri Ved Prakash Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents and have perused the materials available on record.

From the averments made in the petition it transpires that the respondents intend to remove the encroachment from the roads, drains and other public places.

We fail to understand as to how any person can resist the removal of encroachment from such places, as he does not have any right to encroach the roads, drains or the public places. This Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should not come to the aid of such person nor such disputed question of facts can be determined in writ jurisdiction.

This matter was also examined by the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Mohammed Yunus Vs. Urban Improvement Trust, Jodhpur & Ors, AIR 1999 Raj. 334 in which one of us (Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.) was a member. It was clearly held therein that if the induction in the premises itself was void, the person was liable to prove his right to continue with possession and it was difficult to comprehend as to how he could contend that the authorities should take recourse to the procedure prescribed in a particular Statute.

The Authority has to assess and remove the encroachment after taking into account the various Statutes including the Public Premises Act, The Control of National Highways (Land and Traffic) Act, 2002 and the Uttar Pradesh Roadside Land Control Act, 1945 wherein there are specific provisions prohibiting the raising of constructions in certain cases.

The authorities are directed to examine as to whether the petitioners have ensured compliance of the provisions of Section 5 of the Act, 1945 which necessarily requires the permission of the District Collector before raising any construction on the roadside land.

In this view of the matter, the Authorities shall before removing the unauthorized constructions/encroachments, give an opportunity to the petitioners to demonstrate that in fact, they had not made any encroachment and only upon being satisfied that the petitioners had in fact contravened the provisions of the Act or the Government Orders issued from time to time, take necessary steps.

Subject to the observations made above, the writ petition is disposed of.  




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


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 |

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