Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 71573 (ALL)

DEVENDRA KUMAR AGRAWAL AND 7 OTHERS v. STATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

WRIC/21262/2025 · 2025-07-15

Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, Vinod Diwakar

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:115078-DB Court No. - 29 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 21262 of 2025 Petitioner :- Devendra Kumar Agrawal And 7 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Das Yadav,Ram Krishna Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar,J. 1. Heard Shri Ram Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Dilip Kumar Kesarwani, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for State respondents. 2. The instant writ petition has been preferred for quashing the demolition notices dated 28.05.2025 issued by respondent no.2 under Section 5-6 of U.P. Road Side Land Control Act, 1945 (in short "Act, 1945") and for a direction to respondents not to demolish the shops of the petitioner and not to evict them from their shops. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that at no point of time the petitioners have encroached upon the land of Public Works Department and the construction is existed on the allotted place. The petitioners were given the shops on rent by respondent no.4-Nagar Palika Parishad and the shops were constructed by respondent no.4 after due measurements. He submits that the impugned notice is per se unsustainable and the petitioners have also filed detailed objection against the same. Till date the objection has not been decided and the respondents are carrying out demolition. 4. Learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel has vehemently opposed the writ petition and submitted that the Act, 1945 is self-contained Act, wherein full fledged mechanism is provided to take recourse against the impugned notice. Even after finalisation of the proceeding, remedial forum is also available. As such the writ petition being premature is liable to be dismissed. He submits that in case the petitioner has filed objection, definitely the same would be decided in accordance with law expeditiously. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits of the issue, the writ petition stands disposed of with observation that if the petitioners' objection is still pending consideration, the same shall be considered and decided strictly in accordance with law expeditiously and preferably within three weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order but certainly after giving opportunity to all the stake holders in the matter. 6. For a period of one month or till the disposal of said objection, whichever is earlier, parties shall maintain status quo as on today qua the property in dispute. Order Date :- 16.7.2025 SP/ Digitally signed by :- SURYA PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad