Smt Vijeta Srivastava & Anr. v. State Of U.P. And 4 Others

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Fuzail Ahmad Ansari, learned Standing counsel for the State-respondents and Shri Nipun Singh, learned counsel for the respondent - Prayagraj Development Authority (PDA).

The instant writ petition has been filed praying inter alia for the following relief: "a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to reconstruct the boundary wall of the petitioners, demolished by the respondent authorities without the authority of law. b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay the compensation along with 9% interest for illegal demolition of boundary wall of the petitioners of the disputed land. "

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are the lawful owners of the land in question, having purchased residential land for constructing their dwelling house situated in Village Jiratmatan @ Narain Das Ka Pura, Pargana Jhunsi, Tehsil Phoolpur, District Prayagraj, through a registered sale deed dated

04.03.2011 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition). He further submits that the names of the petitioners were duly mutated in the revenue records as co-sharers on 29.04.2011 in Case No. 583/2011 decided by the Nayab Tehsildar (Southern). In support of the same, reliance has been placed on the Khatauni for the Fasli years 1418–1423 of Khata No. 00165, wherein the petitioners are recorded as Shreni 1- Ka Bhumidhar with transferable rights (Annexure-2 to the writ petition). It is submitted that the boundary wall constructed by the petitioners was demolished by the PDA without any authority of law, prompting the present petition for restoration of the boundary wall and compensation.

The relief is resisted by Shri Nipun Singh, learned counsel for the PDA, who submits that although the petitioners may be recorded as owners of the land, the land was purchased as agricultural land and at no point of time any lay out plan has been approved by the PDA. There is no averment in the writ petition that the petitioners ever applied for sanction of a lay out plan or building plan under Sections 14 and 15 of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973. In the absence of such sanction, it is not open to the petitioners to undertake construction or raise a boundary wall. It is further submitted that if the petitioners intend to raise construction, including a boundary wall, a proper application must be submitted for approval of the lay out plan and construction as per the building bye-laws framed under the Act,

Having considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record, it is evident that the petitioners have failed to demonstrate that they ever submitted any application before the PDA for sanction of a building plan as mandated under Sections 14 and 15 of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973. In the absence of such sanction, no legal right accrues in favour of the petitioners to raise any construction, including the boundary wall. The Act, 1973 was enacted to ensure planned and regulated urban development within the jurisdiction of the Development Authority. It mandates prior approval of building and lay out plans to prevent unauthorized and potentially hazardous constructions. Any construction raised without due sanction is deemed unauthorized, and demolition thereof cannot be termed illegal merely on the ground of existence of such structure. The legality must stem from statutory compliance. However, this order shall not preclude the petitioners from applying for sanction or regularization of their construction. If such an application is filed, the PDA shall consider the same expeditiously in accordance with law and applicable by- laws.

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. Order Date :- 5.8.2025 NLY NAND LAL YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad