Sri. Hamvir Singh and Others vs State of U.P. and Others

These three writ petitions have been filed practically for the same relief and, therefore, all the writ petitions have been clubbed together and are being decided under this common judgment.

Petitioners before this Court feel aggrieved by the general notice published in newspaper by Executive Engineer, Nirman Khand-1, Public Works Department, Aligarh, whereunder the resident of the area concerned have been informed that certain constructions raised have encroached upon the Agra-Mathura Marg, these have been earmarked and such encroachment must be removed, failing which the same shall be got demolished. The expenditure in that regard shall be recovered from the owner of the constructions.

Counsel for the Petitioner submits that no notice was issued before earmarking the portion and further that the Petitioners have not encroached upon any land adjoining the highway Agra-Mathura. He submits that demarcation of the building without notice and opportunity for the purpose of demolition is unjustified.

In the facts and circumstances of the case we are of the considered opinion that issues of identity and ownership of immovable property are involved which require examination of evidence. Therefore, the grievance of the Petitioner can be more appropriately examined by the Respondent No. 2 i.e. District Magistrate/Collector, Aligarh at the first instance.

Hence, the present writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the Petitioner to make a representation ventilating all his grievances supported by documents before the Respondent No. 2 within two weeks from today along with a certified copy of this order. On such a representation being made the Respondent No. 2 shall call for the records and shall pass a reasoned and speaking order preferably within 4 weeks thereafter.

Counsel for the Petitioner then contended that the building of the Petitioner cannot be demolished without a notice in writing and has placed reliance upon the various Judgments of Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Ludhiyana v. Indrajeet Sing reported in 2008 (13) 506 , Muni Suvrat-Swami Jain S.M.P. Sangh Vs. Arun Nathuram Gaikwad and Others, M. Naga Venkata Lakshmi v. Viskhapatnam Municipal Corporation and Anr. reported in reported in 2007 (6) Supreme 406 and Aslam Mohd. Merchant v. Competent Authority and Ors. reported in 2009 (2) SCC Criminal 793.

The law so laid down is not in doubt and therefore, this Court has permitted the Petitioner to approach the District Magistrate for ventilating their grievances at the first instance and thereafter seek further remedy as may be permissible under the law.