SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2018 Supreme(All) 2167

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
PRADEEP KUMAR SINGH BAGHEL, VED PRAKASH VAISH, JJ.
Rai Ajay Kumar and Others - Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. and Others - Respondent
Writ - C No. 35610 of 2018
Decided On : 26-10-2018

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Vinay Kumar Srivastava, Abhishek Srivastava, Tanu Roopanwal
For the Respondent: C.S.C., Mukesh Kumar Kushwaha

Headnote:

Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 – Encroachment – Application for encroachment removal drive was initiated in area, representation made by the petitioners the Executive Engineer-respondent no. 3 vide his communication has informed the petitioners that he has made a spot inspection and has found that in terms of a compromise – Challenging boundary wall and there is no encroachment on the government land – Challenged – Held, Writ petition with a direction to the respondents to give an opportunity to the petitioners to demonstrate that the land in question is a private property and no encroachment has been made thereon, and after considering their representations, a detailed reasoned order be passed by the authority concerned – Regard being had to the fact that this Court in its earlier order passed in the writ petition filed by the petitioners has permitted the respondent authorities to remove the encroachment in accordance with law but no action has been taken by the authority concerned for removal of their construction – Appeal dismissed.

Facts of the case:

It appears that in the year 1992 an encroachment removal drive was initiated in the area. In response to a representation made by the petitioners the Executive Engineer-respondent no. 3 vide his communication dated 26.10.1992 has informed the petitioners that he has made a spot inspection and has found that in terms of a compromise dated 10.10.1911, which has been duly singed by the then Collector, Varanasi, Executive Engineer, P.W.D., and zamindars Rai Shiv Prasad and Rai Shambhu Prasad, towards north side of the G.T. Road there is a boundary wall and there is no encroachment on the government land. A copy of the communication dated 26.10.1992 is on the record as annexure-2 to the writ petition.

Findings of the case:

Writ petition with a direction to the respondents to give an opportunity to the petitioners to demonstrate that the land in question is a private property and no encroachment has been made thereon, and after considering their representations, a detailed reasoned order be passed by the authority concerned – Regard being had to the fact that this Court in its earlier order passed in the writ petition filed by the petitioners has permitted the respondent authorities to remove the encroachment in accordance with law but no action has been taken by the authority concerned for removal of their construction.

Result: Appeal dismissed

JUDGMENT :

The petitioners are sixteen in number. They have instituted this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for a direction upon the respondents restraining them from demolishing the construction raised by the petitioners in arazi Nos. 61, 62, 63, 982, 983 and 984, Lahartara, Phulwaria, Varanasi.

Briefly stated the facts are that the petitioner no. 1 is a retired Flying Squadron Leader from Air Force. His grandfather late Ravi Shiv Prasad was a zamindar in Lahartara, District Varanasi. The petitioner nos. 2 to 16 have purchased the land by a registered sale deed from grandfather of petitioner no. 1. Their residential houses have been constructed in the campus of D-65/462, (over Arazi Nos. 61, 62 & 63), Amla Nagar, Lahartara, District Varanasi.

It is stated that all the constructions in the said campus are about 60 to 80 years old. All the petitioners are paying house tax to Nagar Nigam. It is stated that sometimes in the year 1910, when there was expansion of G.T. Road a settlement was arrived at between the District Magistrate, Varanasi; the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, and the then zamindars, namely, Rai Shiv Prasad and Rai Shambhu Prasad. Copy of the maps are on the record as annexure-1 to the writ petition.

It appears that in the year 1992 an encroachment removal drive was initiated in the area. In response to a representation made by the petitioners the Executive Engineer-respondent no. 3 vide his communication dated 26.10.1992 has informed the petitioners that he has made a spot inspection and has found that in terms of a compromise dated 10.10.1911, which has been duly singed by the then Collector, Varanasi, Executive Engineer, P.W.D., and zamindars Rai Shiv Prasad and Rai Shambhu Prasad, towards north side of the G.T. Road there is a boundary wall and there is no encroachment on the government land. A copy of the communication dated 26.10.1992 is on the record as annexure-2 to the writ petition.

It is stated that from G.T. Road, Lahartara Crossing to Railway Gate No. 4 Phulwaria (Cantonment) Chauraha, the length of the road situated at Plot No. 60 is 1475 feet and the width of the road is 80 feet eastern side from Lahartara Chauraha and from centre (mid of road) 25 feet towards east up to boundary of Plot Nos. 61, 62, 63, 982, 983 and 984 and 55 feet towards western side from centre of the road.

The petitioners had moved an application on 27.11.2003 before the Executive Engineer, P.W.D. with a request to furnish details of length and width of the road situated at Plot No. 60, G.T. Road Lahartara to Phulwaria (Cantonment) Railway Gate No. 4. In pursuance thereof, the respondent no. 3 had submitted a report dated 27/29.11.2003, which is on the record as annexure-3 to the writ petition. It also demonstrates that the petitioners have not made any further construction or encroachment and their construction is strictly in terms of the compromise dated 10.10.1911. Similar letter was issued by the Executive Engineer on 29.10.2005, which is on the record as annexure-4 to the writ petition. It is stated that a perusal of the communications dated 16.11.1982 and 29.10.2005 issued by the Executive Engineer clearly indicate that different boundary walls and width of the road is specified at different points and no encroachment has been made by the petitioners and they are maintaining their boundary wall which is in existence in terms of earlier compromise. The petitioners have brought on record the receipts of house tax, water tax and electricity dues in respect of their existing construction.

The grievance of the petitioners is that the District Administration of Varanasi, Public Works Department, Municipal Corporation and Varanasi Development Authority, Varanasi have initiated an anti-encroachment drive in the area of Rajghat and Lahartara in the city of Varanasi without giving any notice to the petitioners and other persons. A large scale demolition is being carried out by the aforesaid authorities an






























































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top