Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 80214 (ALL)

ATUL SHARMA v. STATE OF U.P. AND 7 OTHERS

WRIC/25170/2025 · 2025-07-30

Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, Prashant Kumar

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:128165-DB Court No. - 29 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 25170 of 2025 Petitioner :- Atul Sharma Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 7 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Jitendra Singh,Vikas Rastogi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J. 1. Heard Sri Vikas Rastogi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Akhileshwar Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for State-respondent nos.1 to 3. 2. In view of the order proposed to be passed today, notices need not be issued to the private respondents i.e. respondent nos.4 to 8. 3. The instant writ petition is preferred for direction on respondents to remove/demolish the encroachment as well as illegal construction raised by private respondent nos.4 to 8 over the public street and re-seal the illegal construction, which was earlier sealed by the respondent authorities of regulated area Hathras in pursuance of order dated 28.04.2011 passed by this Court in Writ C No.24208 of 2011 and it is also prayed that representation dated 20.06.2025 may be decided by the prescribed authority. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the prescribed authority under the U.P. (Regulations of Building Operations) Act, 1958 (in short, 'RBO Act') had proceeded against the private respondents in the year 2000. The prescribed authority has passed order on 31.05.2002 for removal of illegal encroachment after giving an opportunity/notice. He submits that against the said order, the private respondents have preferred an appeal under section 15 of the RBO Act, which was dismissed vide order dated 18.09.2006. He submits that both the orders have attained finality and till date as per information there is no restraining order by any competent authority/court. He submits that in the facts and circumstances, direction may be issued to the respondents to ensure the compliance of its own order. 5. Considering the aforesaid factual situation, we are of the view that no useful purpose would be served in keeping the matter pending consideration, hence, we dispose of the writ petition, with a direction that in case there is no other impediment, the respondent authority may proceed in accordance with law but certainly after giving opportunity to all the stakeholders. Order Date :- 31.7.2025 Manish Himwan (Prashant Kumar,J.) (M.C. Tripathi, J.) Digitally signed by :- MANISH HIMWAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad