Mazda Begum And Others Vs State of U.P.And Others

Allahabad High Court 25 Feb 2009 Civil Miscellaneous Writ (PIL) Petition No. 7024 of 2009 (2009) 02 AHC CK 0044
Result Published

Judgement Snapshot

Case Number

Civil Miscellaneous Writ (PIL) Petition No. 7024 of 2009

Hon'ble Bench

H.L.Gokhale, CJ and Dilip Gupta, J

Final Decision

Disposed Of

Judgement Text

Translate:

1. Heard Mr. U.K. Goswami in support of this petition. Mr. Mohd. Ali appears for respondent No.3 National Highways Authority of India (in short ''Authority'').

2. This petition is filed with a prayer that the representation of the petitioners dated 5.1.2009 be considered by respondent No. 4the District Magistrate, Kanpur Dehat while carrying out the road widening work by the Authority. A copy of the said representation has been sent to the Authority.

3. It is submitted that there is Mazaar (Tomb) on one of the adjoining plots and it is likely to be disturbed while carrying out the road widening work. Some photographs are annexed to the writ petition. Mr. Ali appearing for the Authority points out that out of these photographs, photograph Nos. 1 to 6 are the photographs of one Mazaar from different angles. According to the petitioners, this Mazaar is supposed to be situated on Plot No. 291, but Mr. Ali points that it is not on Plot No. 791 but it is on Plot No. 754 and 1070, which plots belong to the Authority. He further states that as far as the structures which are shown in photograph Nos. 7 to 16 are concerned, which are claimed to be Qabristan, they are not being affected by the project of the Authority.

4. The Mazaar is supposed to be in district Kanpur Dehat and is supposed to be obstructing the work of the Authority. Mr. Ali states that the Authority will shift and accommodate this Mazaar in a suitable parcel of land of the Authority so that the feelings of the persons visiting the Mazaar are not, in any way, affected.

5. In view of the statement made by Mr. Ali, we do not see any reason to entertain this petition. Petition stands disposed of accordingly.

From The Blog
Supreme Court Clarifies Section 27 Evidence Act: Only “Fact Discovered” Admissible, Not Entire Statement
Nov
19
2025

Court News

Supreme Court Clarifies Section 27 Evidence Act: Only “Fact Discovered” Admissible, Not Entire Statement
Read More
Bar Council of India Defends Rules Allowing Foreign Law Firms in Delhi High Court
Nov
19
2025

Court News

Bar Council of India Defends Rules Allowing Foreign Law Firms in Delhi High Court
Read More