Nitya Mishra v. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 5 Others

Prayagraj Development Authority, Shri Utkarsh, Advocate holding brief of Shri Aishwarya Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.6, and perused the material available on record.

The instant writ petition has been preferred with the prayer to issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent nos. 1 to 5 to take immediate and effective action for demolition of illegal construction raised by the respondent no.6 at House No. LJ-16, A.D.A. Colony, Naini, Prayagraj.

The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner is permanent resident of House No. LJ-15A, Doorvani Nagar, A.D.A. Colony, Naini, Prayagraj, which was purchased through a registered sale-deed dated 15.10.2023 from the previous owners.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent no.6, occupant of the adjoining House No. LJ-16, has raised unauthorized construction in violation of Sections 14 and 15 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973, without obtaining requisite approval or sanctioned building plan from the Prayagraj Development Authority. Pursuant to a complaint dated 12.12.2022 made by the petitioner's predecessor-in-title, a demolition order was passed on

20.12.2022, and directions were also issued by the Chief Minister's Office vide communication dated 25.12.2022, requiring appropriate legal action.

Subsequently, the petitioner, having purchased the property on 15.10.2023 through a registered sale deed and upon becoming aware of the illegal construction, submitted further representations dated 11.03.2024. The Zonal Officer of Prayagraj Development Authority, in response, acknowledged the illegality of the construction in a site inspection report and reaffirmed that demolition proceedings had been initiated. Despite this, no coercive or remedial action has been taken by the authorities concerned.

Further, on 21.05.2025, respondent no.6 is alleged to have trespassed upon the petitioner's premises and unlawfully removed the main gate in her absence. The incident was recorded in CCTV footage. Complaints were duly filed before the Station House Officer, P.S. Naini, and later before the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Yamuna Nagar, who directed appropriate enquiry and legal action. However, no FIR has been registered nor has any penal action been initiated.

The inaction on the part of respondent authorities despite a subsisting demolition order, repeated complaints, and continuing instances of criminal trespass, intimidation, and property damage, constitutes a dereliction of statutory and constitutional duties, violating the petitioner's right to property and peaceful enjoyment thereof under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India.

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent no.6 submits that the petitioner has mischaracterized the factual matrix by erroneously alleging unauthorized construction on the part of respondent no.6, whereas, in reality, it is the petitioner who has unlawfully encroached upon the common area of the property of respondent no.6. It is further contended that the petitioner has approached this Court by suppressing material facts, notably the demolition order previously passed against her own unauthorized construction activities.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the Prayagraj Development Authority submits that a demolition order has already been passed in favour of the petitioner, and a notice under Section 27(1) of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 has been duly issued against respondent no.6. It is further submitted that respondent no.6 has subsequently filed an application for compounding of the alleged unauthorized construction, which is presently pending consideration before the competent authority. The learned counsel assures that the petitioner would be afforded due opportunity of hearing in accordance with law prior to the disposal of the said compounding application.

In view of the foregoing submissions and upon consideration of the materials on record, we are of the opinion that the grievance raised by the petitioner may be addressed in the course of adjudication of the compounding application filed by respondent no.6. Accordingly, it is directed that the competent authority shall expeditiously decide the said compounding application, strictly in accordance with law, preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. While deciding the same, the authority shall ensure due compliance with the principles of natural justice and shall afford the petitioner an adequate opportunity of hearing before passing any final order thereon.