Allahabad High Court
Lal Chandra Maurya vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 20 June, 2022
Author: Sunita Agarwal
Bench: Sunita Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 32 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 16183 of 2022 Petitioner :- Lal Chandra Maurya Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Subhash Chandra Maurya,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Anand Prakash Paul,Gaurav Dhama Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.
Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J.
The affidavit filed in compliance of the order dated 9.6.2022 is hereby kept on record.
In compliance of the order dated 9.6.2022 passed by this Court, Sri A.P. Paul, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent Prayagraj Development Authority states that as per the exercise completed by respondent no.3-Vice Chairman, Prayagraj Development Authority, Prayagraj, 22,525 demolition matters were pending for execution at the time (on the date) when he took the charge of the office i.e. 27.7.2021. Out of the above total number, only 34 demolition cases could be put to execution.
On the query made by the Court, as to how these 34 cases had been picked by respondent no.3 for execution, no plausible answer could be given by Sri A.P. Paul. However, this much is submitted that out of 34 matters, 21 cases are of the year 2021-22.
For the pending 22,000 and odd cases, no road map has been prepared by the respondent no.3 after he took the charge of the office. As regards the petitioner herein, the demolition order in his case was passed on 5.4.2018 when it was served on him. The execution proceeding pursuant to the demolition order has been initiated in the year 2022, that too without issuing any fresh notice to the petitioner.
For this reason, by the order dated 3.6.2022, this Court had asked the Prayagraj Development Authority, Prayagraj to hold an enquiry and affidavit in compliance of the order dated 3.6.2022 was filed by respondent no.3-Vice Chairman, Prayagraj Development Authority, Prayagraj.
We, therefore, observe that the Vice Chairman, Prayagraj Development Authority, Prayagraj would be justified in completing the demolition exercise in case of unauthorized constructions in the District Prayagraj. However, appropriate course of action for the Vice Chairman, Prayagraj Development Authority, Prayagraj is to prepare a road map for completion of the execution exercise for the pending demolition matters, which are huge in number.
It goes without saying that at the time of preparation of the road map, which would be a painstaking exercise, fresh inspection of the site in question has to be undertaken as some of the demolition matters are of the year 2000-01.
We, therefore, leave this issue to the wisdom of the respondent no.3-Vice Chairman, Prayagraj Development Authority, Prayagraj with the note of caution that in case of execution in any of the pending demolition matter, a fresh notice would be required to be given to the owner/existing occupant of the building after making an spot inspection of the site in question. No such demolition order can be executed without serving a fresh notice and a fresh inspection, without giving adequate time and opportunity to the owner/occupant to raise their objection to the execution exercise, revived after a long period of time.
As regard the petitioner herein, we dispose of the present writ petition with the direction that the petitioner be given a fresh notice within a period of two weeks, giving him 15 days further time to raise his objection. The notice once served upon the petitioner shall be duly replied by him and a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law shall be passed on the reply, if any, submitted by the petitioner. The execution of the demolition order passed on 5.4.2018 can only be initiated after completion of the proceedings as directed above.
With the above observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 20.6.2022 D. Tamang