Allahabad High Court
SYED ABBAS MURTAZA SHAMSIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 5 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The notice is quashed as the inspection committee did not comply with the statutory requirement of including an architect, and a fresh committee must be constituted.
Summary
Petitioner Syed Abbas Murtaza Shamsi filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated 15‑04‑2026 issued by the Municipal Commissioner under Section 331(1)(2) of the U.P. Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam, seeking demolition of his house. He contended that the notice was invalid because the inspection committee mandated by Section 331 did not include an architect and the inspection report was not served to him, contrary to the precedent in Shirish Chandra v. State of U.P. The Court examined the statutory requirement of a committee comprising an architect and an executive engineer and found the present committee deficient. Consequently, the Court quashed the notice, directed the respondent to constitute a new committee with an independent architect and two executive engineers, and ordered the status‑quo to be maintained pending a fresh inspection and notice. The petition was disposed with these directions.
Issues considered
- Whether the notice issued under Section 331(1)(2) of the U.P. Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam is valid in the absence of an architect in the inspection committee.
- Whether the failure to provide the inspection report to the petitioner renders the proceeding violative of the judgment in Shirish Chandra v. State of U.P.
Legislation cited
- U.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1959 — s. 331
- U.P. Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam — s. 331, 331(1)(2)
Subjects
- writ of certiorari
- mandamus
- municipal law
- demolition
- inspection committee
- architect requirement
- Section 331
- status quo
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 16633 of 2026
Syed Abbas Murtaza Shamsi
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 5 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Syed Ahmed Faizan, Sr. Advocate,
Zaheer Asghar
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Vineet Sankalp
Court No. - 4
HON'BLE NEERAJ TIWARI, J.
HON'BLE SUDHANSHU CHAUHAN, J.
1. Heard Shri S.F.A. Naqvi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Zaheer
Asghar, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Sanding Counsel for
respondent nos.1 to 4 and Shri Vineet Sankalp, learned counsel appearing
for respondent no. 5.
2. Present petition has been filed seeking following reliefs:-
"a. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned
notice dated 15.04.2026 issued under Section 331(1)(2) of the U.P. Nagar Mahapalika
Adhiniyam by respondent no. 5.
b. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the
respondents not to demolish or interfere with the peaceful possession of the petitioner
over House No. 39/12, Dalmandi, District Varanasi."
3. Pursuant to the order dated 30.04.2026, Shri Vineet Sankalp has produced
instruction dated 30.04.2026 along with inspection report dated 15.04.2026,
which are taken on record.
4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioner has placed reliance upon
the judgment of this Court in the matter of Shirish Chandra and others vs.
State of U.P. and others; 2017 7 ADJ 146 decided on 12.05.2017 and
submitted that in terms of Para-8 of judgment read with Section 331 of U.P.
Municipal Corporation Act, 1959 (in short, 'Act, 1959'), Municipal
Commissioner shall constitute a Committee consisting of an Architect and
Executive Engineer, but in present case there is no Architect in the
WRIC No. 16633 of 2026
2
inspection Committee submitted inspection report dated 15.04.2026. Further,
while sending notice dated 15.04.2026, inspection report was not provided to
the petitioner, therefore, proceeding so initiated is bad and is in teeth of
judgment of this Court passed in Shirish Chandra (Supra). Lastly, he
submitted that in the light of aforesaid submissions, proceeding initiated
through impugned notice may be quashed and petition may be allowed.
5. Sri Vineet Sankalp, learned counsel for respondent no. 5 though opposed
the submissions of learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioner, but
could not dispute the facts so argued.
6. Therefore, in the light of aforesaid facts, we dispose of this petition with
direction to respondent no. 5 to constitute a new Committee having at least
one Independent Architect from the approved list, Executive Engineer and
also one more Executive Engineer from any other department of State,
which shall carry out inspection in terms of Section 331 of Act, 1959 and
submit report to Municipal Commissioner. Thereafter, Municipal
Commissioner may issue notice to the petitioner in terms of Section 331 of
Act, 1959 along with inspection report. In case any such notice is issued to
the petitioner, he shall submit reply within two weeks from the date of
receipt of notice. Thereafter, Municipal Commissioner shall decide the
matter in accordance with law after considering the reply of petitioner.
7. Till the aforesaid exercise is completed, parties are directed to maintain
status quo as on date with regard to the petitioner's house or shop in question
as the case may be.
May 7, 2026
Sartaj
(Sudhanshu Chauhan,J.) (Neeraj Tiwari,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
SARTAJ AHMAD
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…