Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 3734 (ALL)

Anukampa Devi v. State of U. P. Thru' Secry.

2014-12-12

D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, P.K.S.BAGHEL

body2014
JUDGMENT Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel, J. In the petition, which has been filed in the public interest, the petitioner has sought a mandamus to the authorities concerned, which are impleaded as the respondents to these proceedings, to remove an encroachment from a public utility road, made by the eighth respondent. 2. On 19 September 2013 the Executive Engineer of the Awas Evam Vikas Parishad, who is impleaded as the third respondent, addressed a communication to the Collector, Allahabad making a reference to the unauthorized construction which has been carried out by the eighth respondent. The communication refers to an order which has already been passed on 1 May 2012 for the removal of the unauthorized encroachment. A request was made to the Collector for the removal of the encroachment on a public road and for that purpose to provide necessary police force. The petitioner has specifically averred in Ground (III) of the writ petition that the husband of the eighth respondent is posted as a Deputy Superintendent of Police in Economic Offences Wing and he was using his authority to harass the petitioner and to ensure that the encroachment is not removed. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the eighth respondent, in which it has been stated that the husband of the eighth respondent is posted as Deputy Superintendent of Police (Special Branch), Allahabad from January 2014. The eighth respondent has made an allegation against the petitioner, who, it is alleged, has also encroached on a public utility road by constructing a bicycle stand for students who attend a coaching class, which is conducted by the petitioner on the third floor of her house. 4. In these proceedings, the Court is not really concerned with the rival allegations between the petitioner and the eighth respondent. If the petitioner on her part has committed any kind of encroachment on a public road or made any construction in violation of law, the competent authority must necessarily also deal with such an infraction. However, that would not justify the authorities in not enforcing an order for removal of the encroachment made by the eighth respondent. The record indicates that an order has already been passed, which is not being enforced despite a request made before the Collector for necessary assistance in that regard. 5. However, that would not justify the authorities in not enforcing an order for removal of the encroachment made by the eighth respondent. The record indicates that an order has already been passed, which is not being enforced despite a request made before the Collector for necessary assistance in that regard. 5. We, accordingly, direct that the Senior Superintendent of Police, Allahabad shall attend to the request which has been made in the letter of the Executive Engineer of the Awas Evam Vikas Parishad on 19 September 2013 no later than within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, in order to enable the authorities to enforce the provisions of law. We also clarify that we have not expressed any opinion in respect of the allegation that the petitioner herself is guilty of an unauthorized encroachment on a public road and only clarify that the authorities would be at liberty to take necessary steps if the grievance is found to be genuine. The petition is, accordingly, disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.