Uma Shankar Singh v. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 Others

Heard Shri Vikrant Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner; Shri Ambrish Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State- respondent and Shri A.P. Paul, learned counsel for the Kanpur Development Authority.

The present writ petition is preferred inter-alia for the following reliefs:- "i. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari to call for the records of the case and to quash the notice under section 26-A(4) of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 dated 19.06.2025 issued by respondent no. 3. II. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondent authorities restraining the respondents from taking any coercive action or dispossessing the petitioner from the property in question during the pendency of present writ petition before this Hon'ble Court. "

Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the petitioner had purchased the disputed Plot No. 36, Block No. E, Scheme 40, Panki, Kanpur Nagar through registered sale deed dated 30.01.2012 from erstwhile owner of the plot namely Ranveer Kapoor, in whose favour the Kanpur Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as "K.D.A.") has executed free hold deed on 24.03.2009. He submitted that as the petitioner is rightful owner of the property in question, notice under section 26-A(4) of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 (in short "the Act, 1973) is per se unsustainable and liable to be set aside.

Per contra, learned counsel for the K.D.A. has raised three fold objections, firstly the K.D.A. had preferred Original Suit No. 837 of 2011 (K.D.A. vs. Ranveer Kapoor) against the free hold deed which was executed by the K.D.A. in favour of Ranveer Kapoor and also prayed in the said proceeding that opposite party may be restrained not to interfere in the possession of the plot in question of the K.D.A. In the said proceeding exparte decree has been passed in favour of K.D.A. on 17.05.2018. Secondly, the order impugned dated 19.06.2025 passed under section 26-A (4) of the Act, 1973 is appealable before the District Judge under the Act, 1973. Once the efficacious remedy is available to the petitioner, there is no reason or occasion to bypass the statutory forum. Thirdly, the disputed facts regarding rights and title cannot be pressed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In view of the exparte decree passed by the civil court, which still holds the field, K.D.A. is owner of the property in question. No such rights can be conferred to the petitioner and notice is fully sustainable in the eye of law.

We have heard rival submissions and perused the record. Nothing has been brought on record to show that the exparte decree passed by civil court in favour of KDA in Original Suit No.837 of 2011 has been set aside by any higher court and as such the same still holds the field. By no stretch of imagination the decree passed by the civil court is amenable to be tested in writ jurisdiction and, therefore, no such rights can be conferred in favour of the petitioner. Moreover, against the order impugned, the petitioner is having efficacious remedy to press relief before the competent civil court.

With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition is disposed of. Order Date :- 31.7.2025 Bhanu (Prashant Kumar,J.) (M. C. Tripathi,J.) BHANU PRATAP KUSHWAHA BHANU PRATAP KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad