The Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court has asked the Uttar Pradesh government whether the survey and demarcation was done according to the law before it issued notice to the alleged encroachers in Bahraich demolition notice case.
The Lucknow court has asked the Uttar Pradesh government whether the survey and demarcation done in the Bahraich demolition case was according to the law.
The Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court has asked the Uttar Pradesh government whether the survey and demarcation was done according to the law before it issued notice to the alleged encroachers in Bahraich demolition notice case.
The court has also sought information from the state government on other points and has fixed November 11 for the next hearing in the case.
A division bench of Justices A R Masoodi and Subhash Vidyarthi passed the order on a public interest litigation filed by the Association for Protection of Civil Rights.
In a major relief to those who have been served notices for demolition of illegal structures erected on the Kundasar-Mahasi-Nanpara-Maharajganj road in Bahraich, the Allahabad High Court had on October 20 extended the time by 15 days to file their replies.
Ram Gopal Mishra (22) of Rehua Mansoor village died of a gunshot wound he suffered on October 13 during a communal face-off in a village in Bahraich district over music being played during a procession.
Notices were served to 23 establishments, including 20 belonging to Muslims, in the area by the PWD.
The PWD carried out inspections in the Maharajganj area on Friday and took measurements of 20-25 houses, including that of Abdul Hamid, one of the men accused in Mishra's killing.
The notices were served under the Road Control Act, 1964.
After the government on Wednesday told the court that its counter affidavit has been filed, the court ordered the petitioner to file its reply.
In the course of hearing, the court also asked Additional Advocate General (AAG) V K Shashi to inform on the next date whether an inquiry was conducted to ascertain whether the people to whom the notice has been issued are the real owners of the property.
At the same time, it was argued on behalf of the petitioner that the Public Works Department (PWD) officers cannot issue the notice under the relevant provisions and only the district magistrate (DM) has the right to do so under the relevant provisions.
At this, the court also asked the AAG to share on the next hearing whether the notices were issued by the appropriate authorities.
The court asked the petitioner to present the details on the next hearing of the persons to whom the notices have been issued.