Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 175431 (ALL)

RAM JEE SINHA v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPTT. LKO. AND 3 OTHERS

WRIC/11460/2025 · 2025-11-25

Amitabh Kumar Rai, Sangeeta Chandra

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 11460 of 2025 Court No. - 2 HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J. HON'BLE AMITABH KUMAR RAI, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel, who appears on behalf of the State-Respondents and Shri Surya Prakash Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.3. This petition has been filed with the following main prayers : "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing the impugned order dated 12.11.2025 issued by the opposite party no. 3 i.e., Executive Officer, Nagar, Panchayat Office, bakshi Ka Talab, Lucknow, annexed as Annexure No.1 to this writ petition. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent authorities not to interfere in the peaceful enjoyment of the gate and the ramp constructed by the petitioner on his plot for easy access in and out of his home. (iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite party no. 3 to pay compensation for illegally breaking the front gate of the petitioner's house, along with all consequential costs for fixing the same." It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a resident of House No. 84D94, Krishna Vihar Colony, situated in Ward No. 07, Kamalabad Barhauli since 2016 and the total area of his house is about 1,000 square feet. There is a 20-feet private street in front of the petitioner's house which is closed at one end. It is stated that the neighbour of the petitioner did not like the petitioner from the beginning and a dispute regarding car parking on the street arose with a neighbour, who filed a complaint. A notice was issued by respondent no.3 on 25.10.2024. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply on 10.11.2024 to the said notice, yet another reminder notice was issued on 28.11.2024 and by order dated 21.12.2024, Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Raj Deepak Chaudhary, Dharmendra Kumar Gautam, Rakesh Kumar Trivedi Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Surya Prakash Singh Ram Jee Sinha .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Urban Development Deptt. Lko. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) the petitioner was informed that his explanation was not found satisfactory. In pursuance of the said order, the petitioner removed the major portion of the ramp except the portion covering the drain, so that his family members, including minor children, could cross the drain outside the house. The petitioner also filed Civil Suit No. 21 of 2025, "Ram Jee Sinha vs. Nishant Agnihotri and Others," before the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hawali, Lucknow, for permanent injunction along with an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 C.P.C., seeking injunction against respondent no. 3 as well as his neighbours. It is submitted that all of a sudden a new notice was issued to the petitioner on 12.11.2025 regarding construction of a ramp and gate allegedly encroaching upon the public street. The petitioner submitted his representation against the said notice and also informed the authorities that the matter was sub judice in the civil suit. However, respondent no.3 along with certain employees arrived on 18.11.2025 to demolish the petitioner's front gate. No opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner, compelling him to file the present writ petition. Shri S. P. Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.3, on the basis of instructions (a copy of which has been produced before this Court), submitted that as evident from the spot inspection, the ramp was found to have been constructed over a public street. Colour photographs of the petitioner's gate and ramp along with G.P.S. locations have been enclosed with the instructions. It is evident that the petitioner's gate opens onto the public road and he has extended the gate and ramp to enable him to park his vehicle. A copy of such instructions is kept on record. We do not find any good ground to interfere. The writ petition is dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to pursue his remedy before the Trial Court in the suit which he has already filed for permanent injunction. November 25, 2025 Mahesh WRIC No. 11460 of 2025 2 (Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) (Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.) Digitally signed by :- MAHESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- MAHESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench