Court No. - 38
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 42358 of 2018 Petitioner :- Randheer Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Adya Prasad Tewari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Abhinava Upadhya,J. Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.
Heard Sri A.P. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the State.
By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has come to this Court alleging that the respondent nos. 4, 5 and 6 at the behest of respondent nos. 2 and 3 are proceeding to demolish the shops constructed by the petitioners on his bhoomidhari land, which is described as Arazi No.971M.
The petitioner was given a notice on 4.5.2017 to remove the construction as the same was encroached on government land and road was proposed to be constructed for which the said area was required. The petitioner furnished his reply that there is no encroachment as the petitioner is bhoomidhari. However, it is alleged that respondents did not give heed to the reply nor any order was passed on the objection filed by the petitioner, which compelled the petitioner to file suit being Suit No.826 of 2017 (Randheer Singh vs. State of U.P. and others). In the said suit, an interim injunction appears to be granted in favour of the petitioner under order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C. by order dated 7.9.2018 clearly stating that no interference should be made in Arazi No.971M. However, this injunction order will not apply in respect of other plots.
Sri Tiwari, learned counsel submits that said injunction order has been submitted before the authorities and an application has also been made that fresh demarcation should be made and the land should be identified and the petitioner himself will demolish the construction if it is found the he has encroached upon the government land. That apart since the injunction is operating in favour of the petitioner, the authorities should not interfere in his possession. Further allegation of the petitioner is that without giving heed either to the application/objection of the petitioner or the injunction order, the workers of PWD are standing there with Bulldozer and JCB to demolish the construction.
It is to be noted that construction of road or widening of road is in under larger public interest, but the said construction in larger public interest would not mean interference with the right of the petitioner without following the procedure prescribed by law. The law prescribed that either the land should be acquired and compensation should be paid if it is found that petitioner is not an encroacher or an application should be filed before the concerned court for withdrawing the injunction granted in favour of the petitioner.
The writ petition is disposed of with the observation that in case injunction order is operating on the land in question, no executive or administrative authority can violate the injunction in favour of the petitioner and no demolition of any kind can be made on the property of the petitioner, except in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 19.12.2018 Ajeet (Vivek Varma, J.) (Abhinava Upadhya, J.)