Logo

Allahabad High Court Orders Demolition of 72 Illegal Lawyers' Chambers Near Lucknow District Court

Shivam Y.

The Allahabad High Court directed demolition of 72 allegedly illegal lawyers' chambers near the Lucknow District Court after issuing fresh notices, while ordering authorities to ensure peaceful implementation with adequate police protection. - Anuradha Singh And Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko And Others

Advertisement
Allahabad High Court Orders Demolition of 72 Illegal Lawyers' Chambers Near Lucknow District Court
Join Telegram

Lucknow: The Allahabad High Court has directed the Lucknow Municipal Corporation to proceed with the removal of around 72 allegedly illegal lawyers' chambers and shops constructed on public land near the District and Sessions Court in Lucknow. While granting one final opportunity to the occupants to vacate the structures or establish a lawful claim, the Court also warned that any attempt to obstruct the demolition or disturb law and order would invite action under the law.

Background of the Case

The matter arose in a public interest litigation concerning encroachments around Chakbast Crossing near the District and Sessions Court. During the hearing, the Lucknow Municipal Corporation informed the Court that it had already demolished more than 100 unauthorized chambers in the area. However, out of 72 encroachments initially identified and served with notices, only 14 could be removed because demolition drives faced resistance and agitation from some advocates. The municipal authorities stated that despite notices being served - and later pasted on the structures and published in newspapers - the remaining occupants did not establish any legal right over the land.

Advertisement

Senior Advocate H.G.S. Parihar, appearing for the office bearers of the Lucknow Bar Association, told the Court that he could not defend illegal encroachments and that any unauthorized occupation, whether by advocates or shopkeepers, could be dealt with in accordance with law. Some counsel, however, requested a sympathetic approach and sought temporary alternative accommodation for advocates until lawful chambers could be arranged.

Court's Observations

A Division Bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Rajeev Bharti observed that although the alleged encroachers were already aware that the structures were unauthorized, fairness required that they be given one more opportunity before demolition.

The Bench directed the municipal authorities to issue fresh written notices to all 72 occupants within a week. If any notice is refused, it must be pasted at the site and publicized through one Hindi and one English daily newspaper. The occupants must receive at least ten days to either vacate the premises or present a valid legal claim supporting their possession.

The Court further stated,

“The specific date of demolition may be apprised to those encroachers so that they could cooperate in such demolition drive. It is made clear that if on the date of demolition, any encroachers or their associates adopt any illegal device or involve in any illegal activity, the needful action may be taken against them, which is permissible under the law.”

To avoid disruption of court proceedings, the Bench directed that the demolition exercise be conducted on a Sunday. It also instructed the Commissioner of Police, District Magistrate and Municipal Commissioner, Lucknow, to coordinate and ensure adequate administrative and police support so that the operation is completed peacefully without any law-and-order issue.

Court's Decision

Disposing of the immediate issue, the High Court ordered the Lucknow Municipal Corporation to complete the fresh notice process and proceed with demolition if the occupants neither vacate the structures nor establish a lawful claim within the prescribed period.

The Bench also clarified that explanations already submitted by office-bearers of the bar associations and other advocates regarding separate proceedings would be considered on the next date of hearing, and no adverse inference would be drawn against them solely because explanations had been sought.

The matter has been listed for further hearing on September 10, 2026.

Advertisement

Case Details:

Case Title: Anuradha Singh And Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko And Others

Case Number: Criminal Writ-Public Interest Litigation No. 4 of 2026

Judges: Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J. and Hon'ble Rajeev Bharti, J.

Decision Date: August 4, 2026

Advertisement

Take CourtBook Everywhere

Access your account on the go with our mobile app.

Get it on Google PlayDownload on the App Store
CourtBook Mobile App

Recommended Posts