The Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, has directed the Lucknow Nagar Nigam to take “legal steps with expedition” to remove 72 illegal encroachments, primarily consisting of advocate chambers and shops, located near the District and Sessions Court premises (Old High Court). The Court clarified that while notice is generally required for authorized structures, immediate action is permissible for unauthorized encroachments on public land.
The matter arose within a Criminal Misc. Writ Petition filed by Anuradha Singh and others, seeking to quash an F.I.R. and an order by a Special SC/ST Judge. During the proceedings, a Division Bench comprising Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Rajeev Bharti took note of illegal constructions in the vicinity of the court. The Court has now ordered the Lucknow Nagar Nigam to initiate a time-bound removal process, authorizing the use of police force if necessary, while maintaining interim protection for the petitioners against coercive actions in their criminal case.
Background of the Case
The petition (Anuradha Singh and Others v. State of U.P.) was filed to challenge an order dated December 20, 2025, passed by the Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Lucknow. That order directed the registration of an F.I.R. against the petitioners—two practicing advocates and their mother—following an application under Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). The allegations involved Sections 115(2), 352, and 324(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and various provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
The petitioners contended that the F.I.R. was a “counterblast” to a prior petition they filed regarding an illegal chamber constructed near their residence by the senior of the complainant, Sujeet Kumar Valmiki.
Arguments of the Parties
For the Petitioners: Sri V.S. Tripathi argued that the allegations were “highly improbable” given that the petitioners are female and were unarmed during the alleged incident on August 30, 2025. He stated that the Special Judge failed to verify if an SC/ST Act offense was actually made out and acted “without application of mind.”
For the Respondents: The learned AGA, Sri S.P. Singh, and counsel for the complainant, Sri Balkeshwar Srivastava, presented counter-affidavits. The Investigating Officer, ACP Shakeel Ahmad, assured the Court that the investigation would follow the “due procedure of law.”
For Lucknow Nagar Nigam: Sri Shailendra Singh Chauhan provided an inspection report identifying 72 encroachers. He noted that since most were advocates or shopkeepers (photostat, typing, and refreshments), formal notices and police support would be required for removal.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Court, led by Hon’ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J. and Hon’ble Rajeev Bharti, J., reviewed the inspection report and the photographs provided by the Nagar Nigam. Addressing the legal requirements for removing such structures, the Bench observed:
“It is a trite law that, while generally, notice is required before demolition, especially for authorized structures, but immediate action can be taken against illegal, unauthorized encroachment on public pathways, footpaths, or government land, often without prior notice. The rule of law must be enforced immediately to remove such encroachments.”
The Court emphasized that the role of the Nagar Nigam is “very important” in maintaining the integrity of the area near the District and Sessions Court premises.
The Decision
The Division Bench issued the following directions:
- Anti-Encroachment Drive: The Lucknow Nagar Nigam is directed to take legal steps with expedition. If encroachers do not receive notices, the same must be “affixed on the encroached part/building/shop” and published in widely circulated Hindi and English news dailies.
- Administrative Assistance: The Court authorized the Nigam to demand “proper assistance from the district administration including police” to ensure the removal of illegal encroachments.
- Compliance Affidavit: An officer not below the rank of Class-II must file an affidavit by the next listing date detailing the recourse adopted.
- Interim Protection: Until further orders, “no coercive steps of any kind whatsoever” shall be taken against the petitioners pursuant to F.I.R. No. 0334/2025.
The Court has requested the Chief Justice to constitute the Bench for the next hearing, scheduled for April 7, 2026, at 3:30 P.M.
Case Details
- Case Title: Anuradha Singh And Others Versus State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko And Others
- Case Number: Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 713 of 2026
- Bench: Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Rajeev Bharti
- Date of Order: March 11, 2026
