Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:122694 Court No. - 33 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 24140 of 2025 Petitioner :- Mayank Pratap Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Uma Nath Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J. 1. Heard Sri Shubham Singh, learned counsel along-with Shri Uma Nath Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioner has preferred the present petition challenging the notice dated 14.07.2025 issued by respondent No.6/Assistant Engineer, Provincial Division, Public Work Department, District - Rampur. By the aforesaid notice, the petitioner was directed to vacate the land situated in village- Badli, Tehsil - Tanda, District Rampur within a week from the date of issuance of notice otherwise proceedings will be initiated against him. 3. It is argued that earlier when the proceedings under Section 4 of the Public Premises Act, 1972 was initiated against the petitioner, in the said proceedings, order dated 05.08.1998 was passed against the father of the petitioner. 4. Aggrieved against the aforesaid, the father of the petitioner namely Shri Chandrapal Singh has preferred Misc. Appeal No. 76 of 1994 in which a judgment was delivered in favour of the father of the petitioner by the Ist Additional District Judge, Rampur on 12.01.1995. It is argued that aforesaid order have become final between the parties. 5. It is further argued that without any notice or opportunity to the petitioner, notice in question namely 14.07.2025 was issued to the petitioner by the Respondent No. 6 by which final direction was given to vacate the land in question within a week and the same has been passed without providing any notice or opportunity of hearing to the petitioner which is complete violation of principles of natural justice. It is further argued that the aforesaid notices having civil consequences and has a direction to vacate the land in dispute but the same has been passed/issued without providing any notice or opportunity of hearing. It is further argued that aforesaid notice is bad in the eyes of law on the ground of following reasons:- (i) In Misc. Appeal No. 76 of 1994 filed by the father of the petitioner, judgment was delivered in his favour on 12.01.1995 which has become final between the parties. (ii) Though the caption of the letter dated 14.07.2025 is a 'Notice' but in fact that on the said notice without giving any opportunity to submit the reply a direction was given to vacate the premises in question. 6. It is further argued that immediately after the petitioner received the notice dated 14.07.2025, a detailed reply was submitted by him to the Respondent No. 6 on 18.07.2025. It is argued that on the one hand no final decision has been taken by the authorities in response to the reply submitted by the petitioner dated 18.07.2025 and on the other hand respondents are trying their level best to remove the petitioner from the property in dispute. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. From perusal of the record, it is clear that by the notice dated 14.07.2025 issued by the respondent No.6 with the direction to vacate the property in dispute but the same has been issued without providing any notice or opportunity of hearing and same has been passed in compete violation of principles of natural justice. 9. In this view of the matter, the present petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to produce the copy of the reply dated 18.07.2025 along with certified copy of this order before the respondent No.6/Assistant Engineer, Provincial Division, Public Work Department, District - Rampur within a period of three weeks from today. In case, the petitioners do so, the respondent No.6 will pass appropriate orders in the matter strictly in accordance with law after taken into consideration of all the relevant aspect of the matter within a period of two months thereafter but after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, if there is no legal impediment. 10. For a period of three months from today or till the decision taken by the Respondent No.6 whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner pursuant to the notice dated 14.07.2025 issued by the Respondent No. 6, copy of which is appended as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. Order Date :- 25.7.2025 Swati Digitally signed by :- SWATI PATHAK High Court of Judicature at Allahabad