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


Haji Mohammad Anwar Farsori And Others v. Jhajhan Singh And Others - WRIT - A No. 64632 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 20114 (28 November 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).


                                                                       Court No. 7

                    Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 64632   of 2006

Haji Mohammad Anwar Farsori and others  versus  Jhajhan Singh and others

Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari,J.

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

This writ petition has been filed against the judgment and order dated 4.11.2006 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.9, Budaun in Misc. Civil Appeal No.11 of 2005, Jhajhan Singh Vs. Haji Mohammad Anwar Farosi and others.

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners are the owners and landlords of premises bearing its house nos.441-A and 441-B situated at Malgodam/ Railway Station Road, Civil Lines, near Indira Chowk, Badaun.  A portion of the above-noted premises bearing its no.441-A was in the tenancy of Bhumi Vikas Bank Budaun and remaining part of the above-noted premises bearing its 441-B is under the tenancy of respondent no.1 which was allotted to him on 7.2.1977 by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer on monthly rent of Rs.50/-.

It appears from the record that the house in dispute was in two parts. They are separated by a common dividing walls dividing the boundary in his distinct and separate portions namely 441-A and 441-B. The first portion house no. 441-A was under the tenancy of Bhumi Vikas Bank, Budaun which vacated. This portion has been released in favour of the petitioner and the other portion of house no. 441-B is under the tenancy of respondent no.1, Jhajhan Singh.

As the portion of house no. 441-A was in dilapidated condition, as such respondent no.1- tenant of house no. 441-B moved an application before Nagar Palika Parishad, Budaun for permission to demolish the same stating that portion of house no. 441-A is in dilapidated condition and is likely to fall upon portion of house no. 441-B and that in the garb of demolition of house no. 441-A, the portion of house no.41-B may be demolished by the petitioner. The relevant extract of the application of the respondents is as under:-

  ^^ izkFkhZ dks fo'oLr lw=ksa ls Kkr gqvk gS fd izkFkhZ ds lanfHkZr fjgk;lh Hkou ds nkf{k.k dh vksj fLFkr Hkou Hkkx tks fd xzke fodkl cSad ds ikl fdjk;s ij gS] cgqr gh 'kh?kz [kkyh gksus okyk gS A vkSj izkFkhZ ds laKku esa ;g Hkh vk;k gS fd cSad okys Hkou Hkkx dk vfr'kh?kz Hkou Lokeh }kjk fxjk;s tkus dh ;kstuk gS A ;fn cSad }kjk [kkyh fd;s tkus ij Hkou Hkkx fxjk;k tkrk gS rks bldh iwjk laHkkouk gS fd izkFkhZ ds edku dh Nr Hkh VwV tk;sxh D;ksafd Nr vkSj fyaVj ,d gh gS ,slh fLFkfr esa izkFkhZ o mldk ifjokj LkMd ij vk tk;sxk A

    izkFkhZ dks ;g Hkh mifYyf[kr djuk gS fd izkFkhZ ds Hkou Lokeh ifjokj okyks us izkFkhZ ds fjgk;lh Hkou ds ihNs mRrj esa fLFkr okys Hkou ij cqyMkstj ls fxjkdj IykV dh 'kDy ns nh gS a ftldk okn lacaf/kr U;k;ky; esa fopkjk/khu gS A

    mijksDr ifjfLFkfr esa izkFkhZ o mldk ifjokj iwjh rjg ls Hk;Hkhr gS vkSj vk'kadk cuh gqbZ fd cSad 'kk[kk Hkkx [kkyh gksus ds Ik'pkr  Hkou Lokeh }kjk fxjk;s tkus ij izkFkhZ ds Hkou Hkkx] ftlesa ;g crkSj fdjk;s }kjk dkfct gS dks Hkh fxjok fn;k tk;sxk A

    vr,o egksn; ls izkFkZuk gS fd izkFkhZ ds Hkou Lokfe;ksa rFkk tyhy] Qj'kskjh] vuoj Qj'kksjh] vdcj Qj'kksjh ,oa vU; okfjlku iq=x.k Lo0 eks0 lQnj Qj'kksjh fu0 Qj'kksjh Vksyk cnk;wW dks vknsf'kr djus dk d"V djsa fd os fdlh n'kk esa izkFkhZ ds fjgk;lh Hkou Hkkx dks fcydqy uqdlku u igqWpk;s vkSj fMlesUVfyax djus dh dksf'k'k u djsa vkSj izkFkhZ ds crkSj fdjk;s }kjk Hkou Hkkx dks ;FkkfLFkfr  ¿LVsVl�? dks cuk;s j[kas A

izkFkhZ ds Hkou Hkkx dh pkSgn~nh A

Ikwjc esa & IykV ,oa dksBh th0,l0 iq"dj

Ikf'pe esa& dksBh oyoUr flag jkBkSj

mRrj esa& [kkyh IykV

              nf>.k esa&cSad ,oa iDdk jksM

fnukad&ikWp vizSy]2002                   izkFkhZ

                                  g0 vLi"V

                     ¿ >k>u flag iq= Lo0 Bkdqj nkl�?

            fu0 441&ch fl0yk0cnk;wW Fkkuk fl0yk0 cnk;wW A^^

A commission was issued for inspection of the site. After inspection permission was granted for demolition of house no. 441-A. When the petitioner went to start to demolish the portion of house no. 441-A, Suit No. 119 of 2002 was filed by respondent no.1 for restraining the petitioner from demolishing the dilapidated portion of the house no. 441-A.

The trial Court vide judgment and order dated 21.3.2005 allowed for demolition of the dilapidated part of the building House No. 441-A with a rider that the petitioner will ensure that the house no.441-B is not damaged.

         Against the order aforesaid, Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2005 was filed by the petitioner in which the Appellate Court has restrained the petitioner from demolishing the dilapidated portion of the said house vide order dated 4.11.2006 which is impugned in the present writ petition. The relevant portion of the order is as under:-

          "  esjh jk; esa vihykFkhZ@oknh ds fo}ku vf/koDrk  dk mijksDr rdZ Lohdkj fd;s tkus ;ksX; gS rFkk fdjk;k fu;aU=.k ,oa fu"dklu vf/kdkjh cnk;wW us fnukad 3&5&2002 dks tks vkns'k ikfjr fd;k gS og l'krZ vkns'k gS A esjh jk; esa oknh ds izkFkZuki= 4x dks iw.kZr;k ;fn Lohdkj ugha fd;k tkrk gS rks vihykFkhZ@oknh dks viw.kZuh; {kfr gksus dh LkEHkkouk gS pwWfd oknh@ vihykFkhZ vius fdjk;snkjh okys fgLls esa dkfct gS vkSj mldk izFke n`"V;k ekeyk curk gS rFkk ,slh fLFkfr esa lqfo/kk dk larqyu Hkh vihykFkhZ@oknh ds Ik{k esa gS A isij la[;k 5x@7 uxj ikfydk ifj"kn cnk;wW dk uksfVl gS ftlesa fd Hkou la[;k 441&, dsk fxjkus dh ftEesnkjh izR;FkhZ@ izfroknh x.k ij Fkksih xbZ gS A esjh jk; esa Hkou la[;k 441&, nkSjku okn ugha fxjk;k tkrk gS rks izfroknhx.k @izR;FkhZx.k dks dksbZ viw.kZuh; {kfr ugha gksxh A vkSj ;fn Hkou la[;k 441&, ds lkFk Hkou la[;k 441&ch Hkh fxj tkrk gS rks oknh@vihykFkhZ dks viw.kZuh; {kfr gksxh rFkk Hkou la[;k 441&ch ds fxjus ls oknh dks okn dh ea'kk gh foQy gks tk;sxh vr%,slh fLFkfr esa eS ;g mfpr le>rk gwW fd voj U;k;ky; }kjk oknh@vihykFkhZ ds izkFkZuk Ik= 4 x ij ikfjr fd;k x;k vkns'k la'kksf/kr gksus ;ksX; gS rFkk vihykFkhZ @oknh dk izkFkZuk Ik= 4x iw.kZr;k Lohdkj gksus ;ksX; gS rFkk nkSjku okn fookfnr Hkou 441&, dks fxjk;s tkus ls izR;FkhZ@izfroknhx.k dks jksdk tkuk mfpr izrhr gksrk gS rnuqlkj izLrqr izdhZ.k flfoy vihy Lohdkj fd;s tkus ;skX; gS A


     vihykFkhZ >ka>u flag dh izLrqr vihy Lohdkj dh tkrh gS rFkk voj U;k;ky; flfoy tt ¿lhfu;j fMohtu�? cnk;wW }kjk izkFkZuk Ik= 4x ij ikfjr vkns'k fnuakfdr 21-3-2005 dks laa'kksf/kr djrs gq, ;g vkns'k fn;k tkrk gS fd izkFkZuk Ik= 4x iw.kZr;k Lohdkj fd;k tkrk gS rFkk fookfnr lEifRr Hkou la[;k 441&, dks fxjkus dh dk;Zokgh dks nkSjku eqdnek LFkfxr fd;k tkrk gS A

Ik{kdkj vihy dk [kpkZ Lo;a viuk viuk ogu djsaxs A

voj U;k;ky; dh Ik=koyh bl fu.kZ; dh ,d izfrfyfi ds lkFk vfoyEc vko';d dk;Zokgh gsrq voj U;k;ky; dks Hksth tk;s A

    Ik{kdkj voj U;k;ky; ds le{k fnukad 15&11&2005 dks mifLFkr gksosa A


                                    ¿,0ch flag�?

             fnukaad 4&11&2006                        vij ftyk tt]

                               U;k;ky; la[;k&9] cnk;wW A

The Court below by the impugned order has held that it is probable that during its demolition the walls may fall on house no. 441-B by which respondent no.1 may suffer irreparable loss and injury as such the court below stayed the demolition of the portion of house no.441-A for which permission was granted by the Nagar Palika Parishad, Budaun.

It is apparent that the permission to demolish the dilapidated part of building no. 441-A was granted on an application of the respondents and that in the suit filed by himself the trial Court passed an order for demolition of the building ensuring that the disputed portion of house no. 441-B is not damaged. If the dilapidated building of house no.441-A is not demolished and it falls, its natural consequences will be that there might be lost of life and also damage to House no.441-B, which the trial Court has failed to consider.  A dilapidated building cannot be left to fall on its own which may cause irreparable loss particularly when the demolition of house No.441-A has been ordered at the instance of the respondents.

In the circumstances, as a precautionary measure, it would be in the interest of justice that the operation of the impugned order dated 4.11.2006 is stayed. The petitioner shall demolish the dilapidated part of building no. 441-A in a manner so as to not in any way cause damage to the portion of house no. 441-B. In case any damage is caused, the petitioner shall be liable to immediately repair forthwith at his own costs.

Issue notice to the respondents returnable at an early date.

List thereafter.

Dated 28.11.2006





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.