SALIM AHMAD v. STATE OF U.P. THROUGH COLLECTOR AND 3 OTHERS
WRIC/10156/2025 · 2025-04-07
Anish Kumar Gupta, Manoj Kumar Gupta
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 35262 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 35262 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:50472-DB Court No. - 21 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 10156 of 2025 Petitioner :- Salim Ahmad Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Collector And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ayush Mishra,Pavan Kumar,Prabha Shanker Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J. Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J.
1. The petitioner is aggrieved by a notice dated 24.02.2025 issued by the Prescribed Authority, Regulated Area, Dhampur, Bijnor requiring the petitioner to submit evidence relating to ownership of three shops and clarify about the status of existence of sanctioned building plan failing which further action shall be taken for which the petitioner would be responsible.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that three shops are in his possession as tenant on behalf of a Waqf for last fifty years and he has been paying rent to the Waqf. The notice should have been issued to the Waqf, as the aforesaid information could only be furnished by the Waqf.
3. As the impugned notice is only a show-cause notice requiring the petitioner to file objection, we are not inclined to examine the submission on merits. We leave it open to the petitioner to file objection in response to the notice within two weeks from today and in which event, the Prescribed Authority will take into
consideration the reply and evidence, if any, submitted by the petitioner and, thereafter, take further steps strictly in accordance with law.
4. The petition stands disposed of. (Anish Kumar Gupta, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.)
Order Date :- 8.4.2025 Ankit. Digitally signed by :- ANKIT VISHWAKARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad