HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD v. Counsel for

1. Heard Shri Ajai Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners; Shri Devesh Vikram, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for State respondents and Shri Yash Padia, learned counsel for Kanpur Development Authority (in short "Authority").

2. Preeti wife of Anil Katheriya along with 75 others, all residents of Usmanpur Jhopad Patti, Keshav Nagar, P.S. Naubasta, Distt. Kanpur Nagar had approached this Court under Art.226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the impugned order dated 3.9.2025 passed by respondent no.6- Officer on Special Duty (OSD), Pravartan, Kanpur Development Authority and for restraining the respondents from demolishing their houses.

3. The impleadment as well as the amendment applications are allowed. Let the necessary impleadment as well as amendment be carried out forthwith.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners are illiterate and belong to weaker section of the society and are residing in their dwelling units from last more than 60 years. In support of his submissions, he has also relied upon voter list as well as Aadhar Card, which are appended as Annexure No.2 to the writ petition. In the year 2009, the State Government had launched a scheme known as "Sarvjan Hitay Gareeb Awas (Slum Area) Malikana Hak Yojna" (in short "Scheme in question") and accordingly the eligibility list of the beneficiaries of the said scheme was published in the news paper by the District Officer, Kanpur Nagar. It is not in dispute that the 2 WRIC No. 34284 of 2025 petitioners are occupying piece of land, which belongs to local bodies/ government and notified as slum area. The list in this regard was published on 8.3.2009, whereby 93 slum areas were identified and the slum area of petitioners was also indicated at Sl.No.21. It is submitted that admittedly all the petitioners belong to economically weaker section of the society but till date the petitioners had not been rehabilitated. The Authority has not made any serious efforts to rehabilitate the economic weaker section of the society, who are residing in the slum areas without any basic amenities. In absence of any rehabilitation, the impugned demolition notice is unsustainable and liable to be stayed till their rehabilitation.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for Authority has vehemently opposed the writ petition and placed the detailed instructions dated 24.09.2025, which is taken on record. He submits that initially notices were issued on 31.10.2020 under Section 26-A (4) of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 (in short "Act, 1973"), whereby each and every slum dwellers were accorded opportunity to furnish their claims. Again notices were served on

17.11.2020, 4.12.2020. Even notices were also affixed in the slum areas. Later on Chief Engineer of the Authority had also requested the Addl. Police Commissioner on 31.8.2022 to provide sufficient police force on 7.9.2022 to remove the unauthorised encroachment over Plot Nos.439, 439B, 440 W- Block, Keshav Nagar, Kanpur. However, on account of non-availability of adequate police force the illegal occupants could not be removed from the place. Since all the petitioners/ incumbents are occupying development area, again a notice was issued on 4.12.2024 indicating therein that the illegal occupants may apply for allotment of dwelling units. Inspite of various notices in this regard, till date the petitioners/ incumbents have not applied under the scheme in question and last notice was issued on

22.4.2025.

6. Learned counsel for the Authority fairly submits that endeavour of the Authority is to ensue rehabilitation of economically weaker section of the society and as such scheme in question had also been launched and the dwelling units are also constructed but inspite of notice neither the petitioners had applied nor deposited even a token amount towards registration. As such the relief, as has been prayed for, is totally misconceived. 3 WRIC No. 34284 of 2025

7. Considering the factual situation, we find that admittedly the disputed site is recorded as slum area as per the notification issued by the Authority itself. The petitioners, on the basis of their identity, claim that they are occupying in the slum areas from several decades. No doubt the Authority had launched various schemes to rehabilitate the slum dwellers and time to time notice in this regard had also been issued under the Act, 1973. Entire pleading is silent to the extent whether the petitioners had ever applied under the scheme in question or responded the notices, which have been issued by the Authority. However, in the interest of justice and considering the fact that the petitioners belong to economically weaker section of the society, we find that one more indulgence may be accorded to the petitioners. Accordingly, it is provided that in case the petitioners apply under the Scheme in question within one month from today along with requisite papers/ fees, the same shall be considered in accordance with law in further two months. In case, the petitioners do not apply within the stipulated period, the Authority would be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law. It is also made clear that before taking final decision, the Authority shall ensure survey on spot and identify real claimants and also ensure that no incumbent may try to set up their case in the light of the instant order. It is further observed that at the time of survey on spot, all the petitioners shall cooperate.

8. For a period of three months or till the disposal of claim of the petitioners, whichever is earlier, the respondents are restrained to carry out demolition pursuant to impugned notice. Meanwhile, the petitioners are also restrained to carry out any development over the disputed site or alienate or create third party interest over their dwelling units.

9. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. (Anish Kumar Gupta,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.) September 25, 2025 SP/ SURYA PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Shri Ajai Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners; Shri Devesh Vikram, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for State respondents and Shri Yash Padia, learned counsel for Kanpur Development Authority (in short "Authority").

2. Preeti wife of Anil Katheriya along with 75 others, all residents of Usmanpur Jhopad Patti, Keshav Nagar, P.S. Naubasta, Distt. Kanpur Nagar had approached this Court under Art.226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the impugned order dated 3.9.2025 passed by respondent no.6- Officer on Special Duty (OSD), Pravartan, Kanpur Development Authority and for restraining the respondents from demolishing their houses.

3. The impleadment as well as the amendment applications are allowed. Let the necessary impleadment as well as amendment be carried out forthwith.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners are illiterate and belong to weaker section of the society and are residing in their dwelling units from last more than 60 years. In support of his submissions, he has also relied upon voter list as well as Aadhar Card, which are appended as Annexure No.2 to the writ petition. In the year 2009, the State Government had launched a scheme known as "Sarvjan Hitay Gareeb Awas (Slum Area) Malikana Hak Yojna" (in short "Scheme in question") and accordingly the eligibility list of the beneficiaries of the said scheme was published in the news paper by the District Officer, Kanpur Nagar. It is not in dispute that the 2 WRIC No. 34284 of 2025 petitioners are occupying piece of land, which belongs to local bodies/ government and notified as slum area. The list in this regard was published on 8.3.2009, whereby 93 slum areas were identified and the slum area of petitioners was also indicated at Sl.No.21. It is submitted that admittedly all the petitioners belong to economically weaker section of the society but till date the petitioners had not been rehabilitated. The Authority has not made any serious efforts to rehabilitate the economic weaker section of the society, who are residing in the slum areas without any basic amenities. In absence of any rehabilitation, the impugned demolition notice is unsustainable and liable to be stayed till their rehabilitation.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for Authority has vehemently opposed the writ petition and placed the detailed instructions dated 24.09.2025, which is taken on record. He submits that initially notices were issued on 31.10.2020 under Section 26-A (4) of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 (in short "Act, 1973"), whereby each and every slum dwellers were accorded opportunity to furnish their claims. Again notices were served on

17.11.2020, 4.12.2020. Even notices were also affixed in the slum areas. Later on Chief Engineer of the Authority had also requested the Addl. Police Commissioner on 31.8.2022 to provide sufficient police force on 7.9.2022 to remove the unauthorised encroachment over Plot Nos.439, 439B, 440 W- Block, Keshav Nagar, Kanpur. However, on account of non-availability of adequate police force the illegal occupants could not be removed from the place. Since all the petitioners/ incumbents are occupying development area, again a notice was issued on 4.12.2024 indicating therein that the illegal occupants may apply for allotment of dwelling units. Inspite of various notices in this regard, till date the petitioners/ incumbents have not applied under the scheme in question and last notice was issued on

22.4.2025.

6. Learned counsel for the Authority fairly submits that endeavour of the Authority is to ensue rehabilitation of economically weaker section of the society and as such scheme in question had also been launched and the dwelling units are also constructed but inspite of notice neither the petitioners had applied nor deposited even a token amount towards registration. As such the relief, as has been prayed for, is totally misconceived. 3 WRIC No. 34284 of 2025

7. Considering the factual situation, we find that admittedly the disputed site is recorded as slum area as per the notification issued by the Authority itself. The petitioners, on the basis of their identity, claim that they are occupying in the slum areas from several decades. No doubt the Authority had launched various schemes to rehabilitate the slum dwellers and time to time notice in this regard had also been issued under the Act, 1973. Entire pleading is silent to the extent whether the petitioners had ever applied under the scheme in question or responded the notices, which have been issued by the Authority. However, in the interest of justice and considering the fact that the petitioners belong to economically weaker section of the society, we find that one more indulgence may be accorded to the petitioners. Accordingly, it is provided that in case the petitioners apply under the Scheme in question within one month from today along with requisite papers/ fees, the same shall be considered in accordance with law in further two months. In case, the petitioners do not apply within the stipulated period, the Authority would be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law. It is also made clear that before taking final decision, the Authority shall ensure survey on spot and identify real claimants and also ensure that no incumbent may try to set up their case in the light of the instant order. It is further observed that at the time of survey on spot, all the petitioners shall cooperate.

8. For a period of three months or till the disposal of claim of the petitioners, whichever is earlier, the respondents are restrained to carry out demolition pursuant to impugned notice. Meanwhile, the petitioners are also restrained to carry out any development over the disputed site or alienate or create third party interest over their dwelling units.

9. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. (Anish Kumar Gupta,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.) September 25, 2025 SP/ SURYA PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad