AGRAWAL STENO
Call us:
+91 8868822355, 9997878593
Please Wait a Moment
Menu
Dashboard
Register Now
Court Case 23 English (English)
Font Size
+
-
Reset
Backspace:
0
Timer :
00:00
Advocate Mr. Amit Verma, representing the petitioner Rajesh Gupta, filed a writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court under Article 226, seeking the quashing of an illegal notification issued by the respondent, the Municipal Corporation. The petitioner argued that the impugned notification violated the principles of natural justice and was not in accordance with the law.The petitioner resides in Ward No. 12, Krishna Colony, Lucknow, where he has been living for the past 25 years. On 15.01.2024, the Municipal Corporation issued a public notification declaring 20 houses in the area as "unauthorized constructions" and ordered their demolition within 30 days. The petitioner became aware of this notification on 20.01.2024 and subsequently submitted his objections before the competent authority.In his objections, the petitioner stated that his house was constructed on legally acquired land and that the construction was carried out as per the building plan approved by the Municipal Corporation. He further contended that the Municipal Corporation had previously recognized his house as a legal structure in multiple property tax notifications, making it arbitrary and unlawful to now declare it as an unauthorized construction.The petitioner was not granted any opportunity for a personal hearing by the Municipal Corporation, and without prior notice or due process, the corporation issued another order on 05.02.2024, finalizing the demolition of his house. This order was in clear violation of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution, as well as the fundamental principles of natural justice.The petitioner also argued that the order passed by the respondent was arbitrary, unreasonable, and non-transparent. As per legal provisions, any structure can only be declared unauthorized after a thorough investigation and adherence to the prescribed legal procedures. The Municipal Corporation failed to provide "judicial review" or a proper opportunity for the petitioner to present his case, thereby depriving him of his legal rights.In response, the respondent submitted an affidavit stating that the petitioner’s construction was not in compliance with the approved building plan and that additional construction was carried out illegally. However, the petitioner refuted this argument by stating that if any unauthorized construction had indeed taken place, the Municipal Corporation would not have previously accepted property tax for the said structure.During the preliminary hearing, the Hon’ble High Court found that the respondent had failed to present substantial evidence proving that the petitioner’s construction was illegal. The Court directed the Municipal Corporation to provide the petitioner with a fair opportunity for a personal hearing and to duly review the documents submitted by him.Accordingly, the Court issued an interim stay on the respondent’s demolition order and restrained the Municipal Corporation from taking any coercive action against the petitioner’s house. The matter has been listed for the next hearing on 20.03.2024.
Advocate Mr. Amit Verma, representing the petitioner Rajesh Gupta, filed a writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court under Article 226, seeking the quashing of an illegal notification issued by the respondent, the Municipal Corporation. The petitioner argued that the impugned notification violated the principles of natural justice and was not in accordance with the law.The petitioner resides in Ward No. 12, Krishna Colony, Lucknow, where he has been living for the past 25 years. On 15.01.2024, the Municipal Corporation issued a public notification declaring 20 houses in the area as "unauthorized constructions" and ordered their demolition within 30 days. The petitioner became aware of this notification on 20.01.2024 and subsequently submitted his objections before the competent authority.In his objections, the petitioner stated that his house was constructed on legally acquired land and that the construction was carried out as per the building plan approved by the Municipal Corporation. He further contended that the Municipal Corporation had previously recognized his house as a legal structure in multiple property tax notifications, making it arbitrary and unlawful to now declare it as an unauthorized construction.The petitioner was not granted any opportunity for a personal hearing by the Municipal Corporation, and without prior notice or due process, the corporation issued another order on 05.02.2024, finalizing the demolition of his house. This order was in clear violation of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution, as well as the fundamental principles of natural justice.The petitioner also argued that the order passed by the respondent was arbitrary, unreasonable, and non-transparent. As per legal provisions, any structure can only be declared unauthorized after a thorough investigation and adherence to the prescribed legal procedures. The Municipal Corporation failed to provide "judicial review" or a proper opportunity for the petitioner to present his case, thereby depriving him of his legal rights.In response, the respondent submitted an affidavit stating that the petitioner’s construction was not in compliance with the approved building plan and that additional construction was carried out illegally. However, the petitioner refuted this argument by stating that if any unauthorized construction had indeed taken place, the Municipal Corporation would not have previously accepted property tax for the said structure.During the preliminary hearing, the Hon’ble High Court found that the respondent had failed to present substantial evidence proving that the petitioner’s construction was illegal. The Court directed the Municipal Corporation to provide the petitioner with a fair opportunity for a personal hearing and to duly review the documents submitted by him.Accordingly, the Court issued an interim stay on the respondent’s demolition order and restrained the Municipal Corporation from taking any coercive action against the petitioner’s house. The matter has been listed for the next hearing on 20.03.2024.
Submit
Submit Test !
×
Dow you want to submit your test now ?
Submit