HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 32595 of 2025 Court No. - 40 HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J. HON'BLE AMITABH KUMAR RAI, J. 1. Heard Sri P.H. Vashishtha, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Shyam Mani Shukla, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 1.9.2025, whereby he has been directed to remove the shop constructed over Khata No. 29, Gata No. 372, on the ground that the said land is recorded as Kabristan and Marghat and that the petitioner has illegally encroached upon it. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has taken the said shop on rent from respondent No. 3 and has been in possession thereof as a tenant for more than 30 years. It is, therefore, submitted that the petitioner cannot be evicted except in accordance with law. It is further urged that respondent No. 3 is the owner of the shop in question and that the impugned order has been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2 submits that Nagar Nigam does not propose to file any counter affidavit. He, however, contends that since Gata No. 372, Category 15(3), is recorded as Kabristan and Marghat, the petitioner cannot claim any lawful right to remain in possession thereon. It is further submitted that the construction of the shop itself, allegedly raised by respondent No. 3, is illegal. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : P.H. Vashishtha Counsel for Respondent(s) : Shyam Mani Shukla Anoop Saxena Alias Anoop Kumar Alias Anoop Kumar Saxena .....Petitioner(s) Bareilly Nagar Nigam And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) 5. From the record, it is evident that the petitioner is in possession of the shop alleged to have been constructed over Gata No. 372. The fact of such possession has not been disputed by respondent No. 3. In these circumstances, the petitioner cannot be evicted except in accordance with law. 6. We further find that the impugned order dated 1.9.2025 has been passed without giving proper notice and affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 7. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to submit a detailed representation against the impugned show-cause notice/order dated 1.9.2025 within a period of one month from today. In case such representation is filed, respondent No. 2 shall decide the same strictly in accordance with law, after giving due notice and opportunity of hearing both to the petitioner as well as respondent No. 3, within a period of two months thereafter. It is needless to observe that while deciding the representation, respondent No. 2 shall supply to the petitioner all such documents/materials which are proposed to be relied upon, so that the petitioner may have an effective opportunity to rebut the same. 8. Till the decision of the petitioner’s representation, or for a period of four months from today, whichever is earlier, respondent No. 2 shall not demolish the shop in question. September 17, 2025 Md Faisal WRIC No. 32595 of 2025 2 (Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) (Saral Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHD FAISAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad