Allahabad HC directs Ghaziabad development body to maintain status quo on demolition notice
Allahabad High Court
has directed that status quo be maintained with regards to the demolition notices issued by
Ghaziabad Development Authority
(
GDA
) over alleged illegal properties built on public land.
Hearing a writ petition, a division bench comprising Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Prashant Kumar granted time to the district administration and GDA to place on record how they intend to rehabilitate the old inhabitants of the properties.
The court also restrained the petitioners from creating any third-party interests or undertaking any development on the disputed property.
The court also observed, "In the facts and circumstances of the case, we also find that it is not in dispute that the petitioners have been occupying the place for the last 40-50 years."
"At this stage, we find that some indulgence and reprieve is to be accorded to the inhabitants who belong to the weaker sections of society and we further direct the authorities to ensure the formulation and implementation of a rehabilitation scheme for such persons," it said.
The bench said the rehabilitation scheme shall be provided by the district administration and the GDA in the next hearing. The next hearing is listed for August 22.
The petitioners filed the present writ petition for quashing the demolition notice dated June 16, 2025, issued by the GDA under section 26-A of the UP Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973.
The GDA initially issued notice to 172 illegal occupants of public land on September 6, 2024, which is earmarked in the master plan.
Consequently, 89 persons filed their objections which were considered and the impugned order (order under challenge) was passed.
During the course of hearing, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioners are old inhabitants and in absence of any rehabilitation scheme as per the law, the old inhabitants, who are occupying small pieces of land for their shelter and admittedly belong to the lower sections of society, will suffer irreparable loss, if uprooted.
After hearing both sides, the court in its order dated July 31 passed the above directives and observed, "It is informed that in response to the earlier court's order, till date the GDA has not taken any remedial measures to rehabilitate the persons who were in illegal occupation for the last 40 years."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
19 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Allahabad HC judge has made a mockery of justice, says Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has passed a scathing order reprimanding an Allahabad High Court judge, choosing to name him while saying that he not only 'cut a sorry figure for himself but has made a mockery of justice'. The order brought to fore the Supreme Court's apprehensions about the High Court judiciary's performance. 'We are at our wits' end to understand what is wrong with the Indian judiciary at the level of the High Court. At times we are left wondering whether such orders are passed on some extraneous considerations or it is sheer ignorance of law. Whatever it be, passing of such absurd and erroneous orders is something unpardonable,' a Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan wrote in a 19-page order dictated in open court on August 4 and published on Tuesday. The apex court recorded that the High Court judge in question, Justice Prashant Kumar, found nothing wrong in a litigant filing a criminal case against a buyer in a purely civil dispute over an unpaid balance of money in a sale transaction. In fact, the Bench said the High Court judge had found that registering a criminal case for 'criminal breach of trust' would be a quicker way to get the unpaid balance. A civil suit would be too laborious and time-consuming. 'The judge has gone to the extent of saying that asking the complainant to pursue civil remedy for the purpose of recovery of the balance amount will be very unreasonable as civil suit may take a long time… It was expected of the High Court to know the well-settled position of law that in cases of civil dispute a complainant cannot be permitted to resort to criminal proceedings as the same would amount to abuse of process', the Supreme Court noted. Justice Pardiwala, the lead judge on the apex court Bench, asked how the ingredients of the offence of 'criminal breach of trust' would apply to a sale transaction. The offence would only arise if there was a fraudulent misappropriation of an 'entrusted' property. 'Mere transaction of sale cannot amount to an entrustment,' the apex court explained. Interestingly, even the local police had refused to lodge a criminal case, saying the nature of the dispute was purely civil. However, the Magistrate had gone ahead to register a criminal case, oblivious of the point that the dispute concerned only a sale transaction and payment of a balance amount. Justice Kumar had seconded the Magistrate's point of view, refusing to quash the criminal case. 'We are not taken by surprise with the Magistrate exhibiting complete ignorance of law as to what constitutes cheating and criminal breach of trust … However, we expected at least the High Court to understand the fine distinction between the two offences and the necessary ingredients to constitute the offence of cheating and criminal breach of trust,' the apex court rued. It further asked the Allahabad High Court Chief Justice to remove Justice Kumar from the criminal roster and not assign any criminal case to the latter till he demitted office. 'The Chief Justice shall make the judge concerned sit in a Division Bench with a seasoned senior judge of the High Court,' the Supreme Court noted.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Failure to lower National Flag after sunset not an act of gross affront: Kerala HC
Kochi: High court has held that a mere lapse or inaction in not lowering the National Flag after sunset cannot be regarded as an act of gross affront, indignity, or insult to the flag. Justice Kauser Edappagath made the ruling while allowing a petition by Vinu C Kunjappan, a former secretary of Angamaly municipality, seeking to quash a criminal case against him for allegedly dishonouring the National Flag. The allegation was that, during his tenure as secretary, he failed to lower the National Flag hoisted in the municipal office compound on Aug 15, 2015, and that it remained hoisted even two days later. Angamaly police had suo motu registered a case under Section 2(a) of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971, read with Part III, Section III, Rule 3.6 of the Flag Code of India, 2002. Perusing the petition, HC noted that to attract Section 2 of the Act, a person must burn, mutilate, deface, defile, disfigure, destroy, trample upon or otherwise show disrespect to or bring into contempt the Indian National Flag or the Constitution of India, in any public place or within public view. The court held that the act of not lowering the National Flag after sunset does not fall within any of the acts listed in Section 2. Further, prosecution had no case that this omission amounted to a gross affront or indignity to the National Flag. In the absence of any deliberate or intentional act, HC held that Kunjappan's conduct could not be considered a punishable offence under the law. Similarly, the Flag Code of India, 2002, contains executive instructions issued by the central govt and, therefore, does not qualify as "law" within the meaning of Article 13(3)(a) of the Constitution. It serves as a model code of conduct, which is expected to be compulsorily followed by all citizens, but penal consequences cannot be invoked unless there is a specific statutory provision providing for such punishment. Accordingly, HC quashed the case and all further proceedings against the petitioner.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Can't monitor CM Relief Fund disbursement but hope there's no deviation from its purpose: HC
Mumbai: Bombay High Court has said it cannot monitor disbursement of money from the Chief Minister's Relief Fund, but it hopes and trusts the same is utilised strictly for the purpose for which it is operated and there is no deviation. A bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep Marne, in the order on July 31, noted transactions of the fund can always be accessed by members of the public by seeking information under the Right to Information Act. "We cannot monitor the operation of the CMRF. We, however, hope and trust that the contributions made to the CMRF are utilised strictly for the objectives and purpose for which the fund is operated and that there is no deviation in any case," the court said. You Can Also Check: Mumbai AQI | Weather in Mumbai | Bank Holidays in Mumbai | Public Holidays in Mumbai The HC disposed of a public interest litigation filed by city-based NGO 'Public Concern for Governance Trust', claiming the Chief Minister's Relief Fund was being used for purposes other than what it was established for. The plea said the CMRF should be used solely and exclusively to assist victims of natural calamities, disasters and upheavals, as was envisaged at the time of its formation. The government opposed the plea, saying that while initially the CMRF was set up to assist victims of natural calamities and disasters, its aims and objectives were expanded in November 2001. This was done in view of the increasing demands for victims of incidents other than natural calamities. The petition also sought the HC to form a committee to manage disbursement of money from the CMRF and also for an audit to be conducted. It alleged that the CMRF is being used by successive chief ministers for other reasons such as construction of cultural halls, sponsoring teams for tournaments, granting personal loans to political, social and cultural bodies and so on. The government said providing assistance for promotion of cultural and sporting activities was one of the objectives of the CMRF. The CMRF was being operated in a transparent manner and information related to its transactions could be obtained through the Right to Information Act, the government added. The high court in its order said it was a matter of policy decision of the state government to sanction and widen the CMRF's objectives. The petitioner cannot insist that the CMRF must be operated for the original purpose alone and there is no legal prohibition on widening of the objective of the CMRF, the judges said. The HC also refused to accept the petitioner's allegation of non-maintenance of CMRF's transparency and said the accounts of the trust are audited and income tax returns are filed.
