Mohammad Niyamat Ali Khan v. Sankalp
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed as not pressed with aforesaid
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 88. Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of in terms of judgment of this Court passed in Syed Abbas Murtaza Shamsi (Supra).
- Para 99. For the reasons contained in judgment & order dated 07.05.2026 passed in Syed Abbas Murtaza Shamsi (Supra), parties are directed to maintain status quo as on date with regard to the petitioner's house or shop as the case may be, till the completion of…
Judgment
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Sanding Counsel for State-respondents , Sri Ravi Prakash Pandey, learned counsel for respondent nos. 4 & 7 and Shri Vineet Sankalp, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 5 & 6.
Present petition has been filed seeking following reliefs:- "a. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned notice dated 17.04.2026 issued by respondent no. 7 (Zonal Officer Varanasi Development Authority, Varanasi Zone 3) under Section 27 of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973. b. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned notice dated 23.04.2026 issued by respondent no.5 under Section 331(1)(2) of Uttar Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1959."
Shri Vineet Sankalp has produced instruction dated 30.04.2026 along with inspection report dated 23.04.2026, which are taken on record.
Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that so for prayer no. (i) is concerned, writ petition may be dismissed as not pressed with liberty to file fresh petition.
Operative part
Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed as not pressed with aforesaid liberty, so far as it relates to prayer no. (i). 2 WRIC No. 18045 of 2026
Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that present controversy is squarely covered with the judgment of this Court passed in Syed Abbas Murtaza Shamsi vs. State of U.P. and others; (Writ-C No. 16633 of 2026) decided on 07.05.2026, therefore, this petition may also be disposed of on same terms.
Learned counsels for respondents has not disputed the aforesaid submissions.
Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of in terms of judgment of this Court passed in Syed Abbas Murtaza Shamsi (Supra).
For the reasons contained in judgment & order dated 07.05.2026 passed in Syed Abbas Murtaza Shamsi (Supra), parties are directed to maintain status quo as on date with regard to the petitioner's house or shop as the case may be, till the completion of all the exercise. May 7, 2026 Sartaj (Sudhanshu Chauhan,J.) (Neeraj Tiwari,J.) SARTAJ AHMAD SARTAJ AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed as not pressed with aforesaid
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 — s. 27; Uttar Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1959 — s. 331(1)(2).
Which court decided this case, and when?
Allahabad High Court, on 07 May 2026. The bench was NEERAJ TIWARI, SUDHANSHU CHAUHAN.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.