Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:35376-DB Court No. - 21 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 36102 of 2024 Petitioner :- Sarita Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Amit Verma,Saurabh Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- Amit Verma,C.S.C.,Krishna Kant Dubey,Ravi Prakash Pandey,Santosh Kumar Dubey,Tejasvi Misra Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J. Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J. 1. Second supplementary affidavit and rejoinder affidavit filed today, are taken on record. 2. Heard Shri Saurabh Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for respondent No. 1, Shri Tejasvi Mishra and Shri Amit Verma, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 and Shri Krishna Kant Dubey, learned counsel for respondent No. 3. 3. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed by the petitioner for a direction to Ghaziabad Development Authority, Ghaziabad (respondent no. 2) to carry out demolition of illegal structure in pursuance of notice dated 09.01.2024. 4. The case of the petitioner is that respondent No. 3 has raised illegal constructions on the front open set back on the ground floor and in respect of which notice dated 09.01.2024 was issued to him. Further case of the petitioner is that on 16.07.2024, order for demolition was passed against respondent No. 3. However, respondent No. 3 has not removed the offending constructions. 5. Having regard to the aforesaid case of the petitioner, we required the Development Authority to clarify its stand. In pursuance thereof, the Development Authority has taken the stand that the constructions made by respondent No. 3 on the front set back by putting tin-shed and shutter have been duly removed. 6. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 also takes the same stand. He submits that respondent No. 3 has already removed the tin-shed and shutter. He submits that the petitioner has also made illegal constructions and in respect thereof, a notice has also been issued to the petitioner. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on second supplementary affidavit in submitting that although, tin-shed and shutter have been removed but the wall constructed on the open land over which tin-shed was placed has still not been removed. 8. Learned counsel for the Development Authority states that the Development Authority will examine the said aspect and will take appropriate action in accordance with law. 9. Having regard to the stand of the parties, we are of the opinion that interest of justice would be sub-served in permitting the petitioner to file a detailed representation before the respondent, Development Authority, pointing out the structure which according to him is covered by the demolition order but has not been removed. 10. The Development Authority will take decision on the said representation after due notice and opportunity of hearing to respondent No. 3. 11. As regards proceedings initiated against the petitioner, we express no opinion as the same is not subject matter of the instant case. 12. The writ petition stands disposed of. Order Date :- 11.3.2025 Mukesh Kr. (Anish Kumar Gupta,J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.) Digitally signed by :- MUKESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- MUKESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad