TRILOKCHAND SHARMA AND 2 OTHERS v. STATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS
WRIC/13227/2025 · 2025-05-25
Anish Kumar Gupta, Manoj Kumar Gupta
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 50705 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 50705 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:89033-DB Court No. - 21 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 13227 of 2025 Petitioner :- Trilokchand Sharma And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashish Mishra,Jai Shanker Misra,Vijai Shanker Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Kaushalendra Nath Singh Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J. Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J.
1. The petitioners are aggrieved by a notice dated 07.02.2025 issued by respondent no.3 directing the petitioners to remove certain constructions allegedly made by them over Khasra no.86, resulting in disturbance of existing status of the constructions over the land, within seven days, failing which, the Authority will proceed to demolish the same.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in respect of the same land, the petitioners instituted a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction against NOIDA and it was decreed in appeal by judgement dated 16th April, 1998. Against the same, NOIDA filed Second Appeal No.1440 of 1998 wherein an order of status quo was passed on 06.07.2001 and the said order is still in operation. In such circumstances, the NOIDA, by issuing the impugned notice, is itself disturbing the existing status quo and, therefore, the notice is not only illegal but violation of the injunction order passed in second appeal.
3. Shri Kaushalendra Nath Singh, learned counsel for the respondent-Development Authority submits that, after passing of the order of status quo, the petitioners have made certain constructions and the impugned notice has been given for removing those constructions. He, however, fairly concedes that NOIDA itself being party to the lis, could not judge for itself whether the status quo, as was existing on the date of passing of the said order, has been disturbed. He states that the impugned notice would be withdrawn and NOIDA will file appropriate application in pending second appeal seeking clarification and, if advised, also under Order 39 Rule 2A C.P.C.
4. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of by providing that
the impugned notice, as stated, would be withdrawn within a week and it shall be open to NOIDA to move appropriate application in the pending second appeal or avail such other remedy, as may be advised, in respect of alleged violation of the injunction order. (Anish Kumar Gupta, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.) Order Date :- 26.5.2025 Ankit. Digitally signed by :- ANKIT VISHWAKARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad