Allahabad High Court
SANJAY SHARMA AND 2 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The Court held that the writ petition is not maintainable at this stage and disposed of it without adjudicating the merits, directing that any objection be filed within a week and thereafter decided.
Summary
The petitioners filed a writ petition seeking quash of a notice dated 21.01.2026 issued under the U.P. Road Side Land Control Act, 1945. The State, through its Additional Chief Standing Counsel, raised two objections: that the proceedings under the Act were still pending and that the petitioners possessed an effective statutory remedy under the same Act. The Court noted that proceeding with the writ while the substantive proceedings were unfinished would serve no useful purpose. With the parties' consent, the Court disposed of the petition without addressing its merits, directing that any objection to the notice must be filed within a week, after which the respondent will decide within two weeks, ensuring an opportunity to be heard. No substantive merits of the petition were examined.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ petition is maintainable when the underlying proceedings under the U.P. Road Side Land Control Act, 1945 are pending.
- Whether the existence of an efficacious statutory remedy under the Act bars the filing of a writ petition for quashing the notice.
- Whether the notice issued under the Act can be quashed by this Court at the interim stage.
Legislation cited
- U.P. Road Side Land Control Act, 1945
Subjects
- writ petition
- quashing notice
- maintainability
- statutory remedy
- U.P. Road Side Land Control Act
- civil procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 16652 of 2026
Sanjay Sharma And 2 Others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Madhukar Maurya, Mohd Zubair Khan
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 21
HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J.
HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J.
1. Heard Sri Madhukar Maurya, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Ambrish
Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondent.
2. The instant writ petition has been preferred for quashing the impugned notice dated
21.01.2026 issued by respondent no. 3 under U.P. Road Side Land Control Act 1945.
3. At the very outset, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel raised two-fold
objections qua maintainability of the writ petition. Firstly, the proceedings under U.P.
Road Side Land Control Act 1945 (in short 'Act') are yet to be finalised and without
waiting for final outcome of said proceedings straightaway the petitioners have
approached to this Court without filing an objection to the impugned notice.
Secondly, against the final outcome of the proceedings under the Act, the petitioners
are having efficacious statutory remedy under the Act itself.
4. In the facts and circumstances of the case, no useful purpose would be served in
keeping the writ petition pending and with the consent of the parties, the writ petition
is disposed of finally with a direction in case, any such objection is filed by the
petitioner within a week's time from today, the respondent no. 3 would proceed
strictly, in accordance with law to decide the same within further two weeks time but
certainly after affording opportunity to the petitioners. Needless to say, we have not
adverted on merit of the case.
(Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.)
May 7, 2026
A.K.Srivastava
Digitally signed by :-
ARUN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…