Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 148308 (ALL)

DEVENDRA KUMAR TIWARI v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. DEPTT. OF HOUSING AND URBAN PLANNING AND 8 OTHERS

WPIL/660/2025 · 2025-07-01

Attau Rahman Masoodi, Shree Prakash Singh

Public Interest Litigationbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:36928-DB Court No. - 1 Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 660 of 2025 Petitioner :- Devendra Kumar Tiwari Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Housing And Urban Planning And 8 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Raj Kumar Singh,Akhilesh Kumar Mishra,Kartikay Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ratnesh Chandra Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi,J. Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J. Sri Saurabh Yadav, Advocate, has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf the opposite parties no. 2 & 3(Lucknow Development Authority), which is taken on record. Heard Sri Raj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Nishant Shukla, learned counsel for the State, Sri Saurabh Yadav, learned counsel for the Lucknow Development Authority and perused the record. Sri Nishant Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State, on the basis of instructions, has stated that in so far as the complaint against causing damage to the standing Banyan/Peepal tree is concerned, the same is wholly misplaced as no such damage is either caused or threatened to be caused to the said tree. There is equally no application for cutting down the same. As such, the safety of the Banyan/Peepal tree and it's upkeep is intact and the apprehension of the petitioner that the same may be cut or otherwise damaged, is wholly misplaced. This court is also apprised about an order dated 24-06-2025 passed in Writ C No. 5965 of 2025, Srishti Singh Gautam Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others, instituted by opposite party no. 9, wherein certain directions have been issued. The subject matter of the writ petition not being an issue before us, cannot be commented upon. With the clarification as above that the Banyan/Peepal tree stands protected, therefore, the purpose of filing the present public interest writ petition to that extent, does not call for any further direction by this court. The proceeding as regards the illegal constructions drawn, if any, is a part of separate cause and the law shall take it's own course in that regard. The public interest writ petition is accordingly disposed of. . (Shree Prakash Singh,J.) (A.R.Masoodi,J.) Order Date :- 1.7.2025 AKS Digitally signed by :- ANUJ KRISHNA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench