HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 31208 of 2025 Court No. - 40 HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J. HON'BLE AMITABH KUMAR RAI, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos.1 & 3 and Sri Nagesh Kumar, learned counsel for respondent nos.4 & 5. 2. The petitioner by means of the present writ petition has assailed the impugned notice/order dated 03.06.2025 issued by the respondent no.6 whereby he has directed the petitioner to remove the gate and boundary wall within seven days. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the impugned notice/order has been issued on the complaint of one Manoj Kumar Gupta who happens to be the relative of Nisha Nagaria and Ashish Nagaria with whom there is a private dispute. It is submitted that there is property dispute between the petitioner and Nisha Nagaria and Ashish Nagaria which is pending before this Court in Second Appeal No.1170 of 2022. It is submitted that the complaint is motivated and the petitioner has not encroached any land of Nagar Nigam and has not obstructed any 'Rasta'. It is submitted that the impugned notice/order has been issued without giving any notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 4. The impugned notice/order reflects that the same has been issued to the petitioner without considering the objection of the petitioner filed as Annexure No.7 to the writ petition. Further, the said notice/order reflects that no notice or opportunity of hearing has been given to the petitioner and without considering the order of this Court in Writ-C No.21864 of 2021 which has restrained the authorities from interfering with the possession of Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Minakshi Tripathi, Monarch Tripathi Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Nagesh Kumar Kapil Yadav .....Petitioner(s) State Of Up And 5 Others .....Respondent(s) the petitioner unless there is an order passed by the competent authority in accordance with law. Relevant extract of the order dated 01.12.2021 passed in the aforesaid writ petition is reproduced herein below:- "If that be so, we would only like to clarify that the impugned order would not constitute any basis for any action of dispossession/eviction of private individuals unless there is an order passed by the competent court in accordance with law. We also hasten to add that the administrative authorities would be better advised not to venture into such private disputes relating to ownership of land and the matters in that regard would be left to be resolved by the competent civil court where parties can adduce their evidence and their respective right and title over the land in question could be determined. We also clarify that in the event any decree has attained finality, the parties shall be at liberty to execute the same in accordance with law." 5. From the aforesaid, it is apparent that the petitioner's gate and boundary wall can only be removed after an order passed by the competent authority in accordance with law, and if the competent authority comes to a conclusion that the dispute is essentially a private dispute, that would be left to be settled by the competent Civil Court on the basis of evidence and material on record. 6. In view of the aforesaid fact, the writ petition is disposed off permitting the petitioner to file a detailed objection against the impugned notice/order within a period of four weeks from today before the respondent no.2- Municipal Commissioner, Jhansi Region, Jhansi. In case any such objection is filed, the respondent no.2 shall decide the same strictly in accordance with law within a period of two months thereafter after giving due notice and opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties. 7. Till the objection of the petitioner is decided, the respondents are restrained from removing/demolishing the gate and boundary wall of the petitioner. September 9, 2025 SS WRIC No. 31208 of 2025 2 (Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) (Saral Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- SUNIL KUMAR SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad