Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Allahabad High Court

TARA GUPTAversusSTATE OF UP AND 3 OTHERS

Decided

Holding

The Assistant Engineer lacked jurisdiction to issue the eviction notice, rendering it void, and the petitioner is entitled to file a representation before the appropriate authority with a stay of coercive action.

Summary

The petitioner challenged a public notice dated 03.07.2025 issued by the Assistant Engineer, Provisional Division, Public Works Department, Varanasi, which declared her husband an unauthorised occupant and ordered removal of the alleged encroachment. She contended that the Assistant Engineer had no 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 High Court found merit in the petitioner's argument, held that the notice was issued without jurisdiction, and therefore set it aside. The Court directed the petitioner to file a detailed representation before the Chairman of the Public Works Department within one month, and ordered that the Chairman decide the representation within a month of receipt. A stay was granted for two months (or until the representation is decided) prohibiting any coercive steps to evict the petitioner.

Issues considered

  • Whether the Assistant Engineer, Provisional Division, Public Works Department, Varanasi had jurisdiction to issue a notice of eviction against the petitioner’s husband.
  • Whether the notice issued under the Public Works Department is valid in the absence of compliance with the Uttar Pradesh Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972.

Legislation cited

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

Subjects

  • writ petition
  • public notice
  • encroachment
  • jurisdiction
  • unauthorised occupant
  • stay order
  • representation
  • Uttar Pradesh Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act

Judgment

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

                       WRIT - C No. - 18594 of 2026

Tara Gupta
                                                               .....Petitioner(s)
                                   Versus
State Of U.P. 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 husband of 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 off the writ petition permitting the petitioner to file a detailed
representation ventilating all her grievances along with certified copy of this
order before the respondent No.4/Chairman, Public Works
Department,Varanasi within a period of one month from today. In case such
                                                                                             WRIC No. 18594 of 2026
                                                                    2


                                    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.

                                    6. 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.

                                    May 12, 2026
                                    NS
                                                                   (Garima Prashad,J.) (Saral Srivastava,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
NITIN KUMAR
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.