High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Suresh Chandra Sharma v. State Of U.P. Thru' Secy. Revenue & Others - WRIT - C No. 100 of 2005  RD-AH 516 (23 February 2005)
Court No. 1
Writ Petition No. 100 of 2005
Suresh Chandra Sharma vs. State of UP and others
HON'BLE YATINDRA SINGH, J.
HON'BLE R.K. RASTOGI, J.
1. An application was filed by respondent no.4 (the contesting respondent) before Rewati Nagar Panchayat district Ballia (Nagar Panchayat) for sanction of map on 5.7.2002. Subsequently an order was passed by the Chairman of Nagar Panchayat asking the contesting respondent to file fresh document. The contesting respondent submitted fresh documents again on 31.1.2003. The Chairman cancelled the application of the petitioner on 14.2.2003 on the ground that it would encroach the road. It appears that contesting respondent continued with the construction. The Collector stopped the construction on 28.7.2003. Subsequently the contesting respondent filed an application for vacating the order passed by the Collector, who by order dated 18.12.2004 allowed the application of the contesting respondent and vacated the order. Hence the present writ petition by the Chairman of the Nagar Panchayat.
2. We have heard counsel for petitioner, Standing counsel and Sri AK Shukla, counsel for the respondents.
3. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Collector has no jurisdiction to pass any order on the application of the contesting respondent and as such the order is illegal. It is correct that the Collector has passed the order on the application filed by the petitioner and not on the appeal but an appeal lies before the Collector against the order dismissing the application for sanction of the map. In view of the fact that this order has been passed by the Collector, there is no merit in this submission.
4. It is correct that the Chairman has dismissed the application for sanction of the map on the ground that there was encroachment of the road. However, the Collector has recorded a finding that there is no dispute in respect of the property in dispute and there is no encroachment on the road. There is nothing to show that the finding recorded by the Collector is illegal. In view of this there is no merit in the writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.