Allahabad HC Dismisses Contempt Plea Over Varanasi Elevated Corridor Project, Allows Construction to Continue

The Allahabad High Court has dismissed contempt petitions alleging violation of an earlier interim order in connection with the construction of a four-lane elevated corridor passing through Shivpur in Varanasi, clearing the way for the project to proceed.

Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal passed the order while hearing a contempt application filed by Narayan and others. The applicants had alleged that construction of the elevated corridor was being carried out in violation of an interim order issued by the High Court in 2013.

According to the applicants, the Court had earlier restrained any construction on the land in dispute, which they claimed was pond land. They argued that the ongoing work for the elevated corridor disregarded this interim protection.

During the hearing, Chief Standing Counsel Bipin Bihari Pandey informed the Court that the applicants themselves had carried out constructions on the disputed land after the 2013 interim order. He pointed out that the order had clearly directed that no construction should be made on the land.

Pandey also told the Court that the elevated corridor project was underway and that 12 out of the proposed 25 pillars had already been constructed. He further submitted that the land on which the corridor was being built was government land and that the applicants had encroached upon it.

After considering the submissions, the Court found no grounds to initiate contempt proceedings. The Court observed that the record indicated constructions had been carried out after the 2013 interim order, which had prohibited such activity.

…no case for contempt is made out as it is clear that constructions have been made post 2013, which was prohibited by the writ Court,” the Court noted while dismissing the contempt petitions.

READ ALSO  Ten Addl Judges of Allahabad HC Sworn in as Permanent Judges

The dispute traces back to 2013 when the petitioners had approached the High Court challenging a 1996 order of a Sub-Divisional Officer that removed their names from the revenue records.

Law Trend
Law Trendhttps://lawtrend.in/
Legal News Website Providing Latest Judgments of Supreme Court and High Court

Related Articles

Latest Articles