Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Allahabad High Court

ANAND KUMAR GUPTAversusSTATE OF UP AND 3 OTHERS

Decided

Holding

The notice issued by the Assistant Engineer was beyond his jurisdiction and therefore invalid.

Summary

The petitioner, Anand Kumar Gupta, challenged a public notice dated 03‑07‑2025 issued by the Assistant Engineer of the Public Works Department, Varanasi, which declared him an unauthorised occupant and ordered removal of the alleged encroachment. He argued that the Assistant Engineer lacked jurisdiction to issue such a notice and that any eviction action must be taken under the Uttar Pradesh Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 by the prescribed authority. The Court found merit in the petitioner's claim of jurisdictional defect and entertained the writ petition. It directed the petitioner to file a detailed representation, with certified copy of the order, before the Chairman of the Public Works Department within one month. The Chairman must decide the representation within a month of receipt, and for up to two months no coercive steps may be taken against the petitioner. The order effectively stayed the impugned notice and provided the petitioner a procedural remedy.

Issues considered

  • Whether the Assistant Engineer, Provisional Division, Public Works Department, Varanasi had jurisdiction to issue a notice of eviction against the petitioner.
  • Whether the notice should have been issued under the Uttar Pradesh Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 by the prescribed authority.

Legislation cited

  • Uttar Pradesh Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972

Subjects

  • encroachment
  • public land
  • jurisdiction
  • eviction notice
  • Uttar Pradesh Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act
  • stay order
  • representation

Judgment

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                       WRIT - C No. - 17714 of 2026

Anand Kumar Gupta
                                                           .....Petitioner(s)
                                  Versus

State Of Up And 3 Others
                                                         .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)           :   Manish Singh, Sushma Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s)           :   C.S.C.

Court No. - 40
                 HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J.
                 HON'BLE GARIMA PRASHAD, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing
Counsel for the State.

2. Petitioner by means of the present writ petition has assailed the public
notice dated 03.07.2025 issued by the Assistant Engineer, Provisional
Division Public Works Department Varanasi holding that the petitioner is
an unauthorised occupant and accordingly he has directed the petitioner to
remove the encroachment.

3. It is contended that the Assistant Engineer, Provisional Division,
Public Works Department Varanasi has no jurisdiction to issue such a
notice inasmuch as if the petitioner has encroached upon the public land,
the remedy available to the respondents is that the notice may be issued
under the Uttar Pradesh Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants)
Act, 1972 by the prescribed authority and thus the notice impugned herein
is without jurisdiction.

4. We, prima facie, find substance in the arguments of the learned
counsel for the petitioner and based on the aforesaid contentions we
entertain the present writ petition.

5. Accordingly, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we
dispose of the writ petition permitting the petitioner to file a detailed
representation ventilating all his grievances along with certified copy of
this order before the respondent No.4/Chairman, Public Works
                                                                                          WRIC No. 17714 of 2026
                                                                   2


                                    Department,Varanasi within a period of one month from today. In case
                                    such a representation is filed, the respondent No.4, after giving due
                                    opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, shall decide the same strictly in
                                    accordance with law within a period of one month from the date he
                                    receives said representation. For a period of two months from today or till
                                    the representation is decided, whichever is earlier, no coercive steps in
                                    respect of the possession of the petitioner shall be taken pursuant to the
                                    impugned public notice dated 03.07.2025.



                                                                  (Garima Prashad,J.) (Saral Srivastava,J.)
                                    May 6, 2026
                                    Kuldeep




Digitally signed by :-
KULDEEP SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.