E-Paper
Lucknow’s Aliganj fire tragedy: Allahabad HC rejects building owner’s plea against razing order
The hight court, however, permits petitioner Birendra Prasad Shukla, the co-owner of the building, to avail the statutory remedy of appeal available under the law within a week
Prefer HTon Google
The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad high court has refused to entertain a writ petition filed by the owner of a building in Lucknow’s Aliganj area where a devastating fire claimed 15 lives on June 22 this year, challenging the Lucknow Development Authority (LDA)’s demolition order as well as the subsequent demolition action.
The court, however, permitted the petitioner, Birendra Prasad Shukla, the co-owner of the building, to avail the statutory remedy of appeal available under the law within a week. Shukla had challenged the LDA’s demolition order dated July 10, the subsequent demolition of the building on July 25 and the consequential demand of ₹26,14,210 towards demolition costs.
The division bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Manjive Shukla in its August 24 order declined to entertain the petition, considering that the petitioner had an alternative statutory remedy under Section 27(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973.
“If such appeal is filed within one week, it shall not be dismissed on the ground of limitation or delay, the same shall be decided expeditiously and all the pleas raised by the petitioner would be considered by the appellate authority,” the bench ordered.
The court noted that the building had a sanctioned map for residential purposes, while the LDA’s case was that a commercial building had subsequently been constructed and commercial activity was being undertaken from the premises. The petitioner’s counsel argued that the demolition order violated Section 27 of the 1973 Act.
It was submitted that after a demolition order, 15 days are required to be granted to the owner to demolish the building themselves. As per the petitioner, the July 10 order was served on July 13, but the building was razed on July 25 before the expiry of the 15-day period.
The petitioner also contended that his statutory right of appeal had been frustrated because a certified copy of the demolition order was not initially served. He submitted that although a true copy of the notice was provided, an attempt to file an appeal before the commissioner was unsuccessful after the LDA clerk informed him that a certified copy was required.
The certified copy was allegedly provided only after the petitioner approached the high court in an earlier writ petition, while the demolition was carried out in the meantime. The LDA counsel submitted that notices had been issued to the petitioner before the demolition order was passed.
According to the authority, notice under Section 27(1) was issued on June 23, objections were filed on July 8 and the demolition order was thereafter passed on July 10. The order was pasted on the premises and a true copy was served upon the petitioner on July 13. The LDA said it waited for 15 days from the date of pasting the order before demolishing the building.
Without expressing an opinion on the competing contentions raised by both parties, the court left all the issues for consideration in statutory appeal proceedings, if filed. A significant aspect of the order was the court’s consideration of the fact that the building had already been demolished.
The court said although it would have been better had the appeal been preferred before demolition, whether the petitioner was prevented from doing so due to any lapse by the LDA or due to his own fault involved disputed questions of fact which could not be determined in summary proceedings under Article 226.
It further observed if the demolition order is found illegal, “it can be set aside or declared to be illegal with consequential directions/orders, if any”. The petitioner could thereafter seek further relief before the appropriate court or forum against the LDA or any other person, if required, the bench added. The court consequently declined to exercise its extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction and dismissed the writ petition.
