AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Vijay Kumar Shukla, J
The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition challenging the impugned order dated 29.5.2024 (Annx.P/1) whereby respondent No.2 while acting under section 133 Cr.P.C. has declared retaining wall being constructed on petitioner's land as public nuisance and has called upon the petitioner to demolish it within 3 days without affording proper opportunity to present its case. The petitioner is making construction on their own land to protect his land and also for safety of people and livestock.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that impungned order has been passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner(s). It is further submitted that date in the impugned order has been mentioned as 29.5.2023 which is a typographical mistake, infact the correct date is 29.5.2024.
Counsel for the respondent submits that against the impugned order, the petitioner has got remedy of revision under section 397 Cr.P.C..
After hearing learned counsel for parties and considering the submission that the order is passed without giving opportunity of hearing, the petition is disposed off with a liberty to the petitioner(s) to submit a detail and comprehensive reply before the respondent respondent No.2 within a period of 10 days from today. If such a reply is filed within the said period, the respondent No.2 shall pass a reasoned and speaking order within 15 days therefrom. If the reply is not filed within the said period, this order will become ineffective. In case if any adverse order is passed against the petitioner, the petitioner will have remedy to take recourse in accordance with law.
Till the order is passed by respondent No.2 after filing of the reply, the status quo as it exists today in respect of the property in question shall be maintained by the parties.
C.c. as per rules.