Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:131387-DB Court No. - 40 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 25902 of 2025 Petitioner :- Shreeram Kushwaha Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Raja Ram Kushwaha Counsel for Respondent :- Abhinava Krishna Srivastava,C.S.C. Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J. Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J. 1. Heard Sri Raja Ram Kushwaha, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for State-respondents and Sri Abhinava Krishna Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 3 to 5. 2. The petitioner by means of present writ petition has assailed the notice/order dated 20.06.2025 issued by the respondent no.4- Executive Engineer, Zone-2, Nagar Nigam Kanpur Nagar by which the respondent no.4 has imposed the punishment by way of penalty of Rs.3,60,000/- upon the petitioner for using the encroached area of road for last ten years. 3. It appears that Executive Engineer, Zone-2, Nagar Nigam, Kanpur Nagar issued a notice/order dated 20.06.2025 on the allegation that the petitioner has encroached 60 square feet land in front of his house and has constructed 'Varandah' and roof. Accordingly, he imposed penalty of Rs.3,60,000/- @ Rs.50/- per square feet per month for using of the said encroached area for the last ten years. 4. Challenging the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that before imposing the penalty, no notice or opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner. It is contended that since the order impugned entails civil consequences, therefore, notice and opportunity of hearing ought to have been given to the petitioner before passing the order dated 20.06.2025. 5. Per-contra, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that since the petitioner has encroached 60 square feet road in front of his house and has constructed a 'Varandah' and roof over the said encroachment, therefore, the imposition of the penalty by the respondent no.4 is correct and there is no illegality in the impugned order. 6. Be that as it may, the order impugned imposes the penalty upon the petitioner for encroaching the road in front of his house and using it for the last ten years. The impugned order entails civil consequences as the penalty has been imposed upon the petitioner for encroaching 60 square feet road in front of his house for raising construction over the said encroached road. 7. Before imposing the penalty, an issue needs to be determined by the respondent no.4 as to whether there is any encroachment or not over the road, and if there is any encroachment, then what is the basis of calculating penalty. 8. Perusal of the impugned order reveals that no notice or opportunity of hearing has been given to the petitioner before passing the impugned order dated 20.06.2025. In this respect, the petitioner has made specific averments in paragraph nos.14 & 15 of the writ petition. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent nos.3 to 5 despite his best efforts failed to demonstrate that any notice or opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. 10. In such view of the fact, impugned order dated 20.06.2025 cannot be sustained in law and is accordingly set aside with liberty to the respondent no.4-Executive Engineer, Zone-2, Nagar Nigam Kanpur Nagar to pass afresh order strictly in accordance with law after giving due notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed with no order as to costs. 12. It is made clear that if there is any concealment of fact by the petitioner in obtaining the present order, the respondents shall have the liberty to file recall application to recall the present order. Order Date :- 5.8.2025 Mohit (Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.) (Saral Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHIT KUMAR KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad