High Court

2.Vakalatnama filed today by Sri Manoj Kumar Mishra, Advocate on behalf of the opposite party nos. 4 and 5 is also taken on record.

3. Heard.

4. In pursuance to the last order passed by this Court, an exercise was undertaken and result of it is a map prepared by the Lucknow Development Authority, a copy of which has been placed before us by Sri Ratnesh Chandra its counsel, according to which, the portion of the premises inside the blue line in the said map is the portion for which the map was sanctioned. The portion constructed immediately outside it, which is marked by green colour is compoundable but, the portion outside the green colour in the map i.e. the portion marked by red is non compoundable. There exist 22 pillars on the said portion, which have been constructed illegally. The submission of Sri Ratnesh Chandra is that almost 65% of the building is liable to be demolished. Apart from it we would like to know as posed by us in our initial order dated 13.1.2025 as to how even after sealing of the said premises by the LDA and handing over its possession to the local police, the construction continued by the private opposite parties i.e. if it is so.

5. Learned Standing Counsel has received certain instructions. Let him file an affidavit on behalf of the opposite parties no. 3 and 10 separately.

6.The private opposite party nos. 4 and 5 are represent by Sri Manoj Mishra and Sri Arun Kumar Shukla is appearing for opposite party nos. 6 to 9, who may also file their response to the writ petition positively within 10 days.

7. Likewise, the Vice Chairman, Lucknow Development Authority shall file his own affidavit within 10 days in response to the writ petition and the queries made in the earlier orders of this Court. Affidavit of Vice Chairman, Lucknow Development Authority shall also indicate as to whether he has instituted any enquiry as to the circumstances in which in spite of sealing by LDA, the construction on the premises in question continued, i.e if it is so and the involvement of the officials of the LDA, if any, in this regard.

8.On the next date, we will consider as to whether any enquiry is required so far as lapse, if any, on the part of the police officials is concerned. 9 .List this case on 19.2.2025 as fresh as first case of the day.

10. Vice Chairman, Lucknow Development Authority, who appears today through video conferencing, need not appear through video conferencing unless ordered by this Court. "

5. On 19.02.2025, the following order was passed:- "1. Application for impleadment has been filed by certain persons through Dr. L.P. Mishra, Advocate is taken on record. Petitioner may file his objection to the same.

2. An affidavit has been filed by Vice Chairman, Lucknow Development Authority inter alia mentioning that an order of demolition has been passed on 06.02.2025. Two affidavits have been filed by State-authorities in response to our earlier orders. The petitioner may respond to the said affidavits, if required. All the aforesaid affidavits are also taken on record.

3. Copy of the affidavits filed by State-authorities be provided to Shri Ratnesh Chandra, learned Counsel for Lucknow Development Authority, who may file his response to the same likewise the copy of affidavit filed by the Vice Chairman, Lucknow Development Authority should be provided to Shri Shailesh Tiwari, learned Standing Counsel for the State- authorities, who may file response to the same by the concerned State- authorities.

4. List/put up this case on 19.03.2025. "

6. Firstly, the counsel who has filed the withdrawal application is not the original counsel and he has not taken NOC from the earlier counsel. Secondly, vide the aforesaid orders, we had asked opposite party no.10 to file his own affidavit as the stand of V.C. was that after sealing, it is the police which was required to ensure compliance. We wanted to know as to how even after sealing of the said premises by L.D.A. and handing over of its possession to local police, the construction continued by the private opposite parties that is if it is so. The affidavit of opposite party no.10 has not been filed. The affidavit in support of the application for withdrawal does not even refer to the earlier orders passed by us and their compliance. It does not say that the building has been demolished. Only demolition order has been issued in February, 2025. We are now in July, 2025. We have to ensure that the rule of law prevails and dignity of orders of court is maintained. We have an inkling that this application for withdrawal has been filed only to save the persons who allowed the construction to continue inspite of the sealing order, therefore, it is our bounden duty to ensure that the petitioner who earlier filed the writ petition and pressed it resulting in the aforesaid two orders does not misuse the process of law to help those who were responsible for the illegal acts which are the subject matter of this petition nor for any personal gain. It appears that the application has been filed to help such officials who may have facilitated the construction by private opposite parties inspite of an order of sealing or to help the private opposite parties escape the rigour of law and continue the illegality.

7. The petitioner should also appear before this Court on the next date.

8. Let the main matter be posted on 07.07.2025 as fresh. (Om Prakash Shukla,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) Order Date :- 1.7.2025/Shanu/-

2.Vakalatnama filed today by Sri Manoj Kumar Mishra, Advocate on behalf of the opposite party nos. 4 and 5 is also taken on record.

3. Heard.

4. In pursuance to the last order passed by this Court, an exercise was undertaken and result of it is a map prepared by the Lucknow Development Authority, a copy of which has been placed before us by Sri Ratnesh Chandra its counsel, according to which, the portion of the premises inside the blue line in the said map is the portion for which the map was sanctioned. The portion constructed immediately outside it, which is marked by green colour is compoundable but, the portion outside the green colour in the map i.e. the portion marked by red is non compoundable. There exist 22 pillars on the said portion, which have been constructed illegally. The submission of Sri Ratnesh Chandra is that almost 65% of the building is liable to be demolished. Apart from it we would like to know as posed by us in our initial order dated 13.1.2025 as to how even after sealing of the said premises by the LDA and handing over its possession to the local police, the construction continued by the private opposite parties i.e. if it is so.

5. Learned Standing Counsel has received certain instructions. Let him file an affidavit on behalf of the opposite parties no. 3 and 10 separately.

6.The private opposite party nos. 4 and 5 are represent by Sri Manoj Mishra and Sri Arun Kumar Shukla is appearing for opposite party nos. 6 to 9, who may also file their response to the writ petition positively within 10 days.

7. Likewise, the Vice Chairman, Lucknow Development Authority shall file his own affidavit within 10 days in response to the writ petition and the queries made in the earlier orders of this Court. Affidavit of Vice Chairman, Lucknow Development Authority shall also indicate as to whether he has instituted any enquiry as to the circumstances in which in spite of sealing by LDA, the construction on the premises in question continued, i.e if it is so and the involvement of the officials of the LDA, if any, in this regard.

8.On the next date, we will consider as to whether any enquiry is required so far as lapse, if any, on the part of the police officials is concerned. 9 .List this case on 19.2.2025 as fresh as first case of the day.

10. Vice Chairman, Lucknow Development Authority, who appears today through video conferencing, need not appear through video conferencing unless ordered by this Court. "

5. On 19.02.2025, the following order was passed:- "1. Application for impleadment has been filed by certain persons through Dr. L.P. Mishra, Advocate is taken on record. Petitioner may file his objection to the same.

2. An affidavit has been filed by Vice Chairman, Lucknow Development Authority inter alia mentioning that an order of demolition has been passed on 06.02.2025. Two affidavits have been filed by State-authorities in response to our earlier orders. The petitioner may respond to the said affidavits, if required. All the aforesaid affidavits are also taken on record.

3. Copy of the affidavits filed by State-authorities be provided to Shri Ratnesh Chandra, learned Counsel for Lucknow Development Authority, who may file his response to the same likewise the copy of affidavit filed by the Vice Chairman, Lucknow Development Authority should be provided to Shri Shailesh Tiwari, learned Standing Counsel for the State- authorities, who may file response to the same by the concerned State- authorities.

4. List/put up this case on 19.03.2025. "

6. Firstly, the counsel who has filed the withdrawal application is not the original counsel and he has not taken NOC from the earlier counsel. Secondly, vide the aforesaid orders, we had asked opposite party no.10 to file his own affidavit as the stand of V.C. was that after sealing, it is the police which was required to ensure compliance. We wanted to know as to how even after sealing of the said premises by L.D.A. and handing over of its possession to local police, the construction continued by the private opposite parties that is if it is so. The affidavit of opposite party no.10 has not been filed. The affidavit in support of the application for withdrawal does not even refer to the earlier orders passed by us and their compliance. It does not say that the building has been demolished. Only demolition order has been issued in February, 2025. We are now in July, 2025. We have to ensure that the rule of law prevails and dignity of orders of court is maintained. We have an inkling that this application for withdrawal has been filed only to save the persons who allowed the construction to continue inspite of the sealing order, therefore, it is our bounden duty to ensure that the petitioner who earlier filed the writ petition and pressed it resulting in the aforesaid two orders does not misuse the process of law to help those who were responsible for the illegal acts which are the subject matter of this petition nor for any personal gain. It appears that the application has been filed to help such officials who may have facilitated the construction by private opposite parties inspite of an order of sealing or to help the private opposite parties escape the rigour of law and continue the illegality.

7. The petitioner should also appear before this Court on the next date.

8. Let the main matter be posted on 07.07.2025 as fresh. (Om Prakash Shukla,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) Order Date :- 1.7.2025/Shanu/-