Court No. - 39
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 14517 of 2019 Petitioner :- Nanda Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Krishna Kant Dwivedi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Neeraj Tripathi
Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar,J. Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J.
Heard Sri K.K.Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri B.S.Paul holding brief of Sri Neeraj Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent no.2 and learned standing counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 3.
The petitioner in this writ petition is seeking a direction to the respondents to give him opportunity to cross examine the necessary parties and the authorities who have conducted the spot inspection of the premises in question being Case No. 114/2017-18 (Secretary Jhansi Development Authority, Jhansi vs. Nanda Yadav).
We find that in respect of certain unauthorised construction the petitioner earlier filed Writ C No. 8770 of 2019 (Nanda Yadav vs. State of U.P. and others) which was allowed by this Court vide order dated 15.3.2019 directing the Vice Chairman, Jhansi Development Authority, Jhansi to decide the matter of the petitioner afresh after getting the site inspected through the three Member Committee consisting of the Secretary, Jhansi Development Authority, Estate Officer, Nagar Nigam Jhansi and Regional Additional Town Planner Nagar Vikas Jhansi. The three Member Committee was constituted and a report was submitted on 3.4.2019 which has been filed as Annexure 8 to the writ petition.
We find that the findings recorded by the Committee in the report are based on the statement of the son of the petitioner at the spot inspection.
In paragraph 2 of the report it has been recorded that the shop no.4 was being used on rent by the petitioner as godown. In paragraph 3 of the report it has also been recorded that the son of the petitioner has stated that map of the said godown has not been passed by him or by the landlord. In paragraph 4 of the report it has been specifically mentioned that map of the said godown was never sanctioned. It is also recorded that at the spot there is a 5.6 meter wide road and other remaining shops constructed there were also not regular or after sanctioning the map.
In this view of the matter since the findings recorded by the Committee are based on the statement of the son of the petitioner, we do not find any good ground to grant the relief as claimed by the petitioner in this writ petition.
The writ petition lacks merit. It is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 26.4.2019 samz