Allahabad High Court
Smt. Sheshpati Tripathi vs State Of Up And 3 Others on 12 December, 2024
Author: Manoj Kumar Gupta
Bench: Manoj Kumar Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:194821-DB Court No. - 21 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 37173 of 2024 Petitioner :- Smt. Sheshpati Tripathi Respondent :- State Of Up And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohit Verma,Sachida Nand Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Narendra Pratap Singh Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.
Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J.
1. Heard Shri Schidanand Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Pradeep Kumar Khare and learned Standing Counsel for the State and Shri Narendra Pratap Singh for respondent no.4.
2. Supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner and personal affidavit filed by respondent no.2 are taken on record.
3. The prayer made in the instant petition is for a direction to respondent nos.2 and 3 not to dispossess and demolish the boundary wall of HIG Plot No.45 situated adjoining to NH-29, Gorakhpur-Deoria Bypass Road, while carrying out widening of the said road from two-lane to four-lane. The petitioner has also prayed for a restraint order against respondent nos.2 and 3 so as not to compel her to execute sale deed in respect of the said plot in favour of the respondents.
4. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner had purchased Plot No.45 area 2450 sq. ft. carved out of Plot No.240/1 vide sale deed dated 15.12.2000. Several other persons also purchased plots in the said colony from the colonizer. One such plot is Plot No.46, which lies adjacent to the plot of the petitioner. The respondents are widening the road and in the process they intend to demolish the boundary wall and take possession of the subject land.
5. The State-respondents have placed written instructions on record, according to which, the plot in question is ceiling surplus land and had vested in the State.
6. In view of the said stand of the State-respondents, we required the Executive Engineer, Provincial Division, PWD, Gorakhpur to file his affidavit and disclose how he claims that the subject land is a ceiling surplus land and had vested in the State.
7. In compliance of the said order, the affidavit, as noted above, has been filed by the Executive Engineer, PWD. Alongwith it, is a public notice to the owners of different plots issued on 18.11.2022 requiring them to produce evidence in support of their title failing which further action would be taken on an assumption that the land is ceiling surplus. It is sought to be contended by learned Standing Counsel that since the petitioner did not file any objection against the same, therefore, it is ceiling surplus land.
8. Another document filed is CLH Form-5A, according to which, 23.09 acres of Plot No.240 was declared as surplus and proceedings for taking possession were undertaken.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on a recent khatauni wherein part of Plot No.240M is still recorded in the name of private persons over an area measuring 7.220 hectare. It is, thus, submitted that entire Plot No.240 was not declared as surplus. It is further submitted that in respect of adjoining HIG Plot No.46, which is also situated over Plot No.240, the purchaser had preferred Writ-C No.30024 of 2023 before this Court, wherein also Executive Engineer, PWD submitted written instructions and did not take any stand in regard to the said land being ceiling surplus land. The said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 26.11.2024 referring the claim to the District Level Committee to be decided in terms of Government Order dated 12th May, 2016. It is, thus, submitted that the instant case be also referred to the Committee and wherein all these questions be left open for being decided.
10. This, in our opinion, would subserve the ends of justice.
11. Accordingly, the instant petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file representation alongwith true attested copy of the instant order before respondent no.3 and in which event, respondent no.3 will decide the same by a speaking order after giving opportunity of hearing to all concerned. All issues are left open for being raised before the Committee. The decision shall be taken within twelve weeks from the date of communication of the instant order.
(Anish Kumar Gupta, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.) Order Date :- 12.12.2024 Ankit.