Court No. - 33
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 19882 of 2019 Petitioner :- Nanda Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Krishna Kant Dwivedi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Gautam Baghel,Mukesh Kumar Kushwaha
Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J.
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Standing Counsel for the respondents no.1 and 2; Shri Amit Saxena, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Gautam Baghel, Advocate, for the caveator-respondent, namely, Smt. Nalini Agarwal.
The case of the petitioner is that he took an accommodation on rent from the caveator-respondent in the year 2003. The Jhansi Development Authority claiming the constructions to be unauthorized drew proceedings against the owner under the provisions of U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973. In those proceedings, without opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the premises was sealed against which an appeal was preferred before the Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi, who remitted the matter back to the authority concerned for taking a fresh decision, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, without setting aside the sealing order. It is the case of the petitioner that since the sealing order was not set aside by the Commissioner, even though he remanded back the matter, the petitioner filed Writ C No.8770 of 2019, which was allowed vide order dated 15.3.2019.
The operative portion of the order dated 15.3.2019 indicates that the orders dated 19.12.2018 and 17.1.2019 passed by the Vice Chairman, Jhansi Development Authority, were quashed and the matter was remitted back for a fresh decision after carrying out inspection through a three member Committee.
It appears that pursuant to the order dated 15.3.2019 passed in Writ C No.8770 of 2019, on 29.5.2019, a fresh order has been passed by the Vice-Chairman, Jhansi Development Authority, Jhansi thereby holding the constructions to be unauthorized and 15 days time has been given for removal.
The case of the petitioner is that against the order dated 29.5.2019 he has filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi which is maintainable under Section 27(2) of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973. It has been submitted that the stay application of the petitioner is pending and has not been addressed and as the owner is in collusion with the Development Authority, whose motive is to some how dispossess the petitioner, there is a serious apprehension that the constructions would be demolished even before expiry of 15 days and consideration of the stay application preferred by the petitioner in the pending appeal.
Shri Amit Saxena, learned counsel for the caveator-respondent has submitted that it appears that today is the date fixed before the Commissioner for consideration of the appeal, therefore, this petition may be disposed of by giving liberty to the petitioner to pursue his appeal before the Commissioner, Jhansi, Division Jhansi.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the apprehension expressed by the petitioner, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the petition by providing that the petitioner would have liberty to press the pending stay application as well as the appeal before the Commissioner, Jhansi, Division Jhansi against the order dated 29.5.2019.
For a period of 15 days from today, the operation of order dated 29.5.2019 shall remain stayed.
In the meantime, the Commissioner, Jhansi, Division Jhansi shall address the appeal as well as the stay application of the petitioner.
Order Date :- 6.6.2019 Rishabh