Read Time: 05 minutes

In an urgent hearing, on Sunday, the Allahabad high court stayed the demolition of a 100-year-old homeopathic clinic and restaurant till February 24 which the local civic body was planning to demolish alleging encroachment over the proposed dedicated corridor to the Prayagraj Airport.

The order has come in view of the attempts by the Prayagraj Development Authority (PDA) to remove all the bottlenecks and encroachments leading to various colonies on Kanpur Road and on the way of the proposed corridor.

Holding that the matter requires further hearing, the bench comprising Justice Pritinker Diwaker and Justice Ashutosh Srivastava directed the PDA to indicate as to how the concerned construction is an encroachment that requires demolition on February 24, i.e. next date of hearing.

One Rakesh Gupta along with two others had filed a plea before the high court seeking directions to the local authority to not interfere in their possession over the concerned land. They had stated that they have possession over the plot and structure thereon i.e. the clinic and eatery for the last more than 100 years. They had also claimed that their property was also allotted a house number and was also assessed for the taxes.

To support their plea, the petitioners had also brought on record that in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL), the high court had already passed general orders putting in abeyance till February 28, 2022, all the orders of eviction, dispossession, or demolition already passed by the High Court, District Court or Civil Court, if not executed till the date of passing of the order.

Further claiming that by no means, their property is an encroachment over the land of said project, the petitioner had pointed out that in pursuance of high court's order in another PIL of 2019, the PDA has already removed all the encroachments over the said project, of which a compliance report had also been submitted. 

On the contrary, challenging the maintainability of the instant petition, the respondent authorities had averred that the petitioner had not challenged the order passed on their representation pertaining to the demolition activity against which they have an alternative remedy of filing an appeal.

Therefore, taking note of both parties' submissions, court directed the matter to be listed as a fresh case on the next date for further consideration. 

Case Title: Rakesh Gupta and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Others