- (1.) Heard Sri P.N. Saxena learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Mukesh Kumar Kushwaha for the appellant Sri S.K. Verma learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Siddharth Verma learned counsel for some of the plaintiff respondents and Sri A.K. Gaur learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 37 Union of India.
(2.) Sri S.K. Verma while pressing his application for vacation of the interim order has submitted that the interim order passed by the Division Bench could not have been passed in view of the decision in the case of Harish Chander Verma Vs Kayasth Pathshala Trust and Others, 1988 1 JT 625.
(3.) The interim order dated 9.5.2011 passed by the Division Bench is quoted here under: The counsel for the appellant submits that; It is not necessary that overbridge be marked in the master plan; The average number of trains passing through the railway crossing is about 51 per day and the railway crossing gate remains closed most of the time; The average number of vehicles passing through the railway crossing is about 1,7157 because of this, traffic jams are common; The technical team of the Railways, UP bridge Corporation and Ghaziabad Development Authority (GDA) had given the report that the bridge is feasible; No private land is being taken for construction of the over bridge and only the land of the GDA and the Railway is being taken; The construction of the over bridge is not only necessary but it is in the public interest. Admit. Issue notice. Till further orders of this Court the operation of the impugned order dated 17.3.2011 shall remain stayed. However, the over bridge will beconstructed at the risk of the appellant. In case the appellant ultimatelly loses the case then it will be remove the same.;