Allahabad High Court
MOHD TARIQ SIDDIQUI AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The court did not quash the notice but granted the petitioners liberty to file objections within a week, with the matter to be decided thereafter.
Summary
Petitioners Mohd Tariq Siddiqui and another challenged a notice dated 10.04.2026 issued by the Executive Engineer, Nagar Nigam, Bareilly, which directed removal of alleged encroachment without granting a hearing. They also sought a mandamus to prevent demolition of their construction, which was based on a building plan sanctioned by the Bareilly Development Authority on 08.08.2025. The petitioners argued that the notice was illegal and violated principles of natural justice. The High Court declined to quash the notice outright but allowed the petitioners a week to file objections to it, and ordered that any such objections be decided within two weeks. The court further directed that the respondents could only proceed after disposal of the objections.
Issues considered
- Whether the notice/order dated 10.04.2026 directing removal of alleged encroachment without hearing is violative of natural justice and liable to be quashed.
- Whether the respondents may demolish the petitioner’s construction despite a sanctioned building plan.
Subjects
- certiorari
- mandamus
- encroachment
- building plan
- natural justice
- administrative law
- writ petition
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 17570 of 2026
Mohd Tariq Siddiqui And Another
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 4 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ashish Pandey, Santosh Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Abhinava Krishna Srivastava, C.S.C.,
Dharmendra Singh Chauhan
Court No. - 4
HON'BLE NEERAJ TIWARI, J.
HON'BLE SUDHANSHU CHAUHAN, J.
1. Case called out in the revised list.
2. Sri Dharmendra Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the Bareilly
Development Authority-respondent no. 5 is not present.
3. The petitioners by means of the present writ petition have prayed for
the following relief:
"i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned
notice/order dated 10.04.2026 issued by the Executive Engineer, Nagar Nigam,
Bareilly.
ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and
directing the respondents not to demolish the constructions of the petitioner no. 1
constructed by him after obtaining the building plan sanctioned by the Bareilly
Development Authority, Bareilly on 08.08.2025."
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned
notice/order dated 10.04.2026 has been issued by respondent no. 4
directing the petitioners to remove the alleged encroachment without
affording them any opportunity of hearing. It is further submitted that the
petitioners have not encroached upon the land in dispute and therefore,
the impugned notice is wholly illegal and liable to be set aside. It is
further prayed that the petitioners may be granted reasonable time to file
objections to the notice dated 10.04.2026.
WRIC No. 17570 of 2026
2
5. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the
petitioner to file objection to the said notice dated 10.04.2026 within a
week. In case objection is filed by the petitioners, the same may be
decided within two weeks thereafter.
6. Only after disposal of the objections, the respondents shall be at liberty
to proceed further in accordance with the decision so taken.
(Sudhanshu Chauhan,J.) (Neeraj Tiwari,J.)
May 6, 2026
Arif
Digitally signed by :-
MOHAMMAD ARIF
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…